RealGM

Assume you get them relatively early in their coaching career. There's no guarantee how long they stay (could be like Phil Jackson doing stints, or Pop stay his whole career).

Feel free to choose a current or all-time player.

I think they're worth at least a low tier all-star starter type player... off the top of my head maybe like a raptors Kyle Lowry or something.

I think Kyle Lowry is a mid tier all-star. He pretty much fits the description of an all-star perfectly, much better than a rotational player but not a top ten guy. He is good enough to be part of a big 3, I would not trade him for a coach.

A low tier all-star to me would be someone like Danillo Galinari, Jamal Murray, Andre Iguodala (all nuggets ) etc. Guys in the discussion for top 30.

It would depend on how bad of a coaching upgrade is needed but I would not trade someone like DeAndre Ayton or Marcus Smart who think are probably a low tier all star level for Greg Popovich.

I think a quality starter (Harison Barnes, Buddy Hield, Dejounte Murray, Joe Ingles) or a faux all-star which is basically the same thing is what I would trade for an elite coach.

Is trading for coaches even a real possibility in the current CBA environment considering how salary matching works? I think this depends too much on context to give a real answer though.

What era of the league are we talking about?

IMO the relative quality of coaches / the quality of a replacement-level coach varies dramatically over the scope of league history. I think the median 2022 coach is much better than the median 1992 coach, and if that's the case Phil and Pop are less valuable accordingly

I would never trade a player who outplay their contract [Non-Minimum] and is signed for 2+ years for a coach.

The best player I'd legitimately trade for one of them would be James Harden, even the Houston version.

Stan wrote:The best player I'd legitimately trade for one of them would be James Harden, even the Houston version.

Its a good thing you will never get closer than 2K to operating a team in any capacity.

Alright, trade Julius Randle, twist my arm.

Anyone but a perennial all-star/superstar. A 15-20 year run with a top coach is more valuable than a fringe all-star today.

Colbinii wrote:

Stan wrote:The best player I'd legitimately trade for one of them would be James Harden, even the Houston version.

Its a good thing you will never get closer than 2K to operating a team in any capacity.

Both of y’all are tripping with your takes but he’s tripping far worse lol

Depends on where you are at, in the sense thay the gap between a bad coach and the best coach is probably a big deal

If you already have a decent coach not much, if you have a coach with clear playoff issues or poor in general probably a good bit? Nothing like a superstar or all star But the gap between a Nick nurse and a Luke Walton is definately more than an mle guy for example

Trade value isn't just player quality - there are many factors, contract amount and length not least among them.

If one somehow got MJ/LeBron/GOAT candidate of your choice at 200% of the cap, then CBA changes and you're more limited in what you can put around them and your owner can't or won't fill the roster with anything but replacement level players, internally at least Mr GoaT becomes valueless, an albatross even (though external demand may still allow a trade for value) because you can't win at a high level.

For coaches there's a bunch of questions too. When do we get them? For how many years? Are they versatile/how confident are we that they are significantly better than peers versus in the best possible situation for themselves. How well do they fit my present team (If I had '95 Rodman, whilst I'm likely onto a loser anyhow, I know '95 Popovich doesn't win him over). Do they have front-office input (do they demand it, is it welcomed, an asset)?

The range of coaching abilities probably changes in different eras too, as has been alluded to by others.

So way too much for a simple player level going on here but a couple of otoh notes:

In the cap era, where an owner is willing to spend, coach/GM is an area where you could spend without constricting other options.

In early eras a combo coach/GM with good connections, hearing the right voices could be invaluable (e.g. Auerbach building the Capitols from scratch, getting the right message on Russell).

Celtics traded Doc Rivers to Clippers for unprotected 2015 future first round pick back in 2013. It turn out to be the 28th pick and RJ Hunter was selected. So that's probably a rough idea how much a veteran coach is valued.

Shohoku High wrote:Celtics traded Doc Rivers to Clippers for unprotected 2015 future first round pick back in 2013. It turn out to be the 28th pick and RJ Hunter was selected. So that's probably a rough idea how much a veteran coach is valued.

Of course we are talking about an ATG coach, not Doc Rivers. Doc Rivers is a better coach than RJ Hunter was a player but he's more Taj Gibson level rather than LeBron James level.

penbeast0 wrote:

Shohoku High wrote:Celtics traded Doc Rivers to Clippers for unprotected 2015 future first round pick back in 2013. It turn out to be the 28th pick and RJ Hunter was selected. So that's probably a rough idea how much a veteran coach is valued.

Of course we are talking about an ATG coach, not Doc Rivers. Doc Rivers is a better coach than RJ Hunter was a player but he's more Taj Gibson level rather than LeBron James level.

Tbf people do randomly like rivers, or some fos at least

An unprotected first round pick is pretty valuable Tbf

I would trade any secondary option for Phil Jackson. This could even be Wade. Secondary options are a dime a dozen in the NBA, Phil Jackson is unique among coaches.

For Popovich I'm not so sure, His succes is mostly linked to Tim Duncan. I'm not so sure he could have done the same with any superstar.

Westbrook with his current contract.

Any player who isn't that hard to replace. For example, in Utah we had Mitchell and Gobert last year. Besides them, I'd happily give any player to have Pop running things.

In the Karl Malone/Stockton era I'd probably trade anyone but them for Jackson. I might have to think about Hornacek tough. It's not like Phil guarantees a win, but despite the fact I liked Sloan a lot I know for a fact he can't bring us to the promise land. If I don't know that I don't even know if I'd trade for Jackson...

In the D-Will era I'd trade anyone but him for Pop. Sloan by then was not a proven winner, but Pop was. If we can bring the rest of the San Antonio structure it's a no brainer.

Mazter wrote:I would trade any secondary option for Phil Jackson. This could even be Wade. Secondary options are a dime a dozen in the NBA, Phil Jackson is unique among coaches.

For Popovich I'm not so sure, His succes is mostly linked to Tim Duncan. I'm not so sure he could have done the same with any superstar.

I feel like Pop needs less of a superstar to succeed than Phil. Phil had prime Kobe or MJ or Shaq. Pop did it with old Tim Duncan. Yes he had Kawih but San Antonio worked to get the absolute best out of Danny Green and other Mills, or even other guys who were nothing without San Antonio's system.

Of course Kawih and Duncan are special. But are they as special as Kobe, MJ and Shaq?

Joao Saraiva wrote:Any player who isn't that hard to replace. For example, in Utah we had Mitchell and Gobert last year. Besides them, I'd happily give any player to have Pop running things.

In the Karl Malone/Stockton era I'd probably trade anyone but them for Jackson. I might have to think about Hornacek tough. It's not like Phil guarantees a win, but despite the fact I liked Sloan a lot I know for a fact he can't bring us to the promise land. If I don't know that I don't even know if I'd trade for Jackson...

In the D-Will era I'd trade anyone but him for Pop. Sloan by then was not a proven winner, but Pop was. If we can bring the rest of the San Antonio structure it's a no brainer.

So ...
1) I'd argue there's a very strong distinction between didn't and can't/couldn't.
2) Even more so when one game (G6 '98 otoh) features two arguably egregious, certainly clear, non-interpretational (no "I do/don't think that should/shouldn't be called a foul" business [e.g. the push]) blown decisions that cause a 5 point swing in the Bulls' favor (Eisley and Harper shot-clock calls). Now I haven't gone through the game with a fine tooth comb, maybe other errors went the other way. And though the Jazz may be favorites with Pippen hurting and with home court for the final game, that by no means guarantees a Jazz win. And the Bulls with that rout in G3 get a clear points dif win and a strong case for better team, I think.

I'm not sure there is a coach who I'd say "can't" win a title (by ability - I suppose in a literal sense anyone who hasn't and is now dead ... but in this instance, again, I'd suggest they should more properly use "didn't") given sufficient opportunity. If there were, it wouldn't be Sloan.