Career value: How low on the RealGM top 100 (2023) can you reasonably go to trade two players for Michael Jordan?

[WestGOAT]

- Duo should be in similar range as each other
- Assume two players with a reasonable fit
- Take expected salary for the players into account*

Would you for example be willing to trade Michael Jordan (#3) for Clyde Drexler (#44) and Anthony Davis (#42)? Top 50.

What about Patrick Ewing (#30) and James Harden (#29)? Top 30.

Name your duo if you voted, and explain why if you feel like it.

*Modern cap situation and rules. So for cases like Scottie Pippen he'd actually be getting a max contract and not being severly being paid below market rate.

[Gibson22]

Your rules make it hard.
like, without salary into account, thurmond and gervin (59 and 61) probably i would do it? and without the same range thing, i think that jokic and ray allen, or payton, or even the great big defenders (thurmond, mutombo, wallace), and maybe even the great scorers like gervin, mcgrady.. i mean i guess jokic + other great players would be a slam dunk just cause jokic is that great. but with the salary thing i guess i wouldnt do the ones you suggested. idk, maybe drob and chris paul?

[Owly]

- Duo should be in similar range as each other
- Assume two players with a reasonable fit.
- Take expected salary for the players into account

Would you for example be willing to trade Michael Jordan (#3) for Clyde Drexler (#44) and Anthony Davis (#42)? Top 50.

What about Patrick Ewing (#30) and James Harden (#29)? Top 30.

Name your duo if you voted, and explain why if you feel like it.

What cap rules?
IIRC Jordan spent a couple of years earning more than the cap and I think more than most teams spent on salary. For all the reasonable heat JR takes for being cheap and for all that "Hey go get what you can ...", there's a sting from the team perspective. So salary ...2 versus one salary normally limits you...it depends what the imagined framework is but how interpreting that plays out to the money comp over careers would be a big potential swing factor.

[WestGOAT]

- Duo should be in similar range as each other
- Assume two players with a reasonable fit.
- Take expected salary for the players into account

Would you for example be willing to trade Michael Jordan (#3) for Clyde Drexler (#44) and Anthony Davis (#42)? Top 50.

What about Patrick Ewing (#30) and James Harden (#29)? Top 30.

Name your duo if you voted, and explain why if you feel like it.

What cap rules?
IIRC Jordan spent a couple of years earning more than the cap and I think more than most teams spent on salary. For all the reasonable heat JR takes for being cheap and for all that "Hey go get what you can ...", there's a sting from the team perspective. So salary ...2 versus one salary normally limits you...it depends what the imagined framework is but how interpreting that plays out to the money comp over careers would be a big potential swing factor.

Modern cap situation and rules. So for cases like Scottie Pippen he'd actually be getting a max contract and not being severly being paid below market rate.

[Laimbeer]

- Duo should be in similar range as each other
- Assume two players with a reasonable fit.
- Take expected salary for the players into account

Would you for example be willing to trade Michael Jordan (#3) for Clyde Drexler (#44) and Anthony Davis (#42)? Top 50.

What about Patrick Ewing (#30) and James Harden (#29)? Top 30.

Name your duo if you voted, and explain why if you feel like it.

What cap rules?
IIRC Jordan spent a couple of years earning more than the cap and I think more than most teams spent on salary. For all the reasonable heat JR takes for being cheap and for all that "Hey go get what you can ...", there's a sting from the team perspective. So salary ...2 versus one salary normally limits you...it depends what the imagined framework is but how interpreting that plays out to the money comp over careers would be a big potential swing factor.

Modern cap situation and rules. So for cases like Scottie Pippen he'd actually be getting a max contract and not being severly being paid below market rate.

I really think that defeats the purpose in what you were trying to do here. You have no idea what the team could do with that extra salary.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using RealGM mobile app

[eminence]

The salary note tells me I should be able to pair MJ with a fringe top 100 talent (or at least Allstar level guy), it hasn't been that hard to do through history (with some notable, sad exceptions).

MJ + Paul Millsap type of guy on the lower end.

So I'll say top 30, tossup with top 40, but top 50 and lower feels like a stretch.

[lessthanjake]

The way I see it, NBA teams’ chances at titles are almost entirely binary. Either you have a major superstar and contend for titles or you don’t. If you don’t have that, then your chances of winning a title are extremely low (though there are exceptions, such as the 2004 Pistons). If you have Michael Jordan, you are obviously a team in the first bucket (and at the high end of that first bucket). I don’t think it’d ever make sense to trade a player who puts you in that first bucket for players that don’t. So then the question is how far down can we go on the all-time list before we get out of the realm of players that put you in that first bucket?

To me, looking at the RealGM top 100 list so far, that is basically top 30. Virtually everyone above that line is someone who, in their prime, was a major superstar that could make their team contend for a title. And virtually everyone below that line is not that type of player, but rather is the type of player that would have very little chance of winning a title without someone higher up on the list on his team. Of course, there’s some exceptions to that demarcation. For instance, I wouldn’t put Patrick Ewing in the category of players that makes his team a contender, while I would put Kawhi Leonard there (if healthy, which is of course the exact caveat that made Kawhi fall below top 30). But, by and large, I think the line here is almost exactly top 30. I definitely wouldn’t trade Jordan for two players below that line, because you’d be trading a perennial championship contending superstar for guys who can’t really reach that level, so your chances of a title go down quite a lot IMO.

Now that we say top 30 is the general line that I definitely wouldn’t go below, the question becomes whether the line should still be higher. And there’s maybe an argument to say top 20 instead of top 30, because of how good Jordan was. But honestly I think the guys in the top 30 are so good that if you have two of them it’s better than having any one player, even taking salary cap into account. Like, to take an example, I don’t really see how I’d take any one player in history over having Giannis + Wade or Moses Malone + Durant or Jokic + Dr. J.

[trex_8063]

The salary consideration makes it tricky, in part because I often don't keep track of that info, but also because I'm sure some "loop-hole" type of outlier exists.

For example, Jordan's teammate Scottie Pippen was grossly underpaid most of his career........suppose we take him (#32) and match him with someone who placed in the 60s somewhere: it technically gets away with "top 70" category. But it feels like a bit of a cheat, because he was so underpaid.

Or do BOTH players have to be within the same 10-player range? (that was not stipulated in the OP)

[lessthanjake]

The salary consideration makes it tricky, in part because I often don't keep track of that info, but also because I'm sure some "loop-hole" type of outlier exists.

For example, Jordan's teammate Scottie Pippen was grossly underpaid most of his career........suppose we take him (#32) and match him with someone who placed in the 60s somewhere: it technically gets away with "top 70" category. But it feels like a bit of a cheat, because he was so underpaid.

Or do BOTH players have to be within the same 10-player range? (that was not stipulated in the OP)

I think both players would need to be at or near the same 10-player range, rather than one player being much higher than the specified range. Otherwise, the answer could basically just be yes to everything, because one could just say you’d trade Jordan for LeBron + someone else further down on the RealGM top 100.

[penbeast0]

Or you count them from where the higher ranking of the two ranked if you think someone was grossly undervalued.

[trex_8063]

The salary consideration makes it tricky, in part because I often don't keep track of that info, but also because I'm sure some "loop-hole" type of outlier exists.

For example, Jordan's teammate Scottie Pippen was grossly underpaid most of his career........suppose we take him (#32) and match him with someone who placed in the 60s somewhere: it technically gets away with "top 70" category. But it feels like a bit of a cheat, because he was so underpaid.

Or do BOTH players have to be within the same 10-player range? (that was not stipulated in the OP)

I think both players would need to be at or near the same 10-player range, rather than one player being much higher than the specified range. Otherwise, the answer could basically just be yes to everything, because one could just say you’d trade Jordan for LeBron + someone else further down on the RealGM top 100.

You're right, that's a good point. I'm sure that's not what OP meant for us to do.

Same range, or (as penbeast0 suggested) you have to use the HIGHER ranked player as the designation for the poll.

[OhayoKD]

The salary consideration makes it tricky, in part because I often don't keep track of that info, but also because I'm sure some "loop-hole" type of outlier exists.

For example, Jordan's teammate Scottie Pippen was grossly underpaid most of his career........suppose we take him (#32) and match him with someone who placed in the 60s somewhere: it technically gets away with "top 70" category. But it feels like a bit of a cheat, because he was so underpaid.

Or do BOTH players have to be within the same 10-player range? (that was not stipulated in the OP)

I think both players would need to be at or near the same 10-player range, rather than one player being much higher than the specified range. Otherwise, the answer could basically just be yes to everything, because one could just say you’d trade Jordan for LeBron + someone else further down on the RealGM top 100.

You're right, that's a good point. I'm sure that's not what OP meant for us to do.

Same range, or (as penbeast0 suggested) you have to use the HIGHER ranked player as the designation for the poll.

"each other" implies the former

[OhayoKD]

omething like iverson/rodman would be where i'd clearly take MJ. probably have those in the 70-80 range.

[scrabbarista]

From memory, because I'm out of town away from my PC, it's definitely top ten. The exact two players is where I have to guesstimate without my spreadsheet. Also, this is from my own rankings, not the PC panel's.

I think my 7-9 is Bird, Wilt, and Hakeem. Two of those three is probably about the lowest I could go based on my rating system for career value. That is from memory, though. The actual answer might not even be that low, but I'm sure it's accurate give or take a spot or two.

EDIT: I did not consider salary or player fit. All I did was "look at" (from memory) the career value scores on my spreadsheet. The question of how you fill out the rest of your roster makes this question too vague, imo. The answer can just be whatever you want it to be.

[Cavsfansince84]

Well personally it'd be top 40 for me because I don't have Jokic in my top 35 yet but by the list it's easily Jokic paired up with someone like Wade or whoever that is top 30. It's not like MJ was coming all that close to winning titles before 1990. Wade+Jokic is contending for titles by year 3 for sure.

[WestGOAT]

The salary consideration makes it tricky, in part because I often don't keep track of that info, but also because I'm sure some "loop-hole" type of outlier exists.

For example, Jordan's teammate Scottie Pippen was grossly underpaid most of his career........suppose we take him (#32) and match him with someone who placed in the 60s somewhere: it technically gets away with "top 70" category. But it feels like a bit of a cheat, because he was so underpaid.

Or do BOTH players have to be within the same 10-player range? (that was not stipulated in the OP)

I actually already addressed cases like Scottie Pippen:

- Duo should be in similar range as each other
- Assume two players with a reasonable fit.
- Take expected salary for the players into account

Would you for example be willing to trade Michael Jordan (#3) for Clyde Drexler (#44) and Anthony Davis (#42)? Top 50.

What about Patrick Ewing (#30) and James Harden (#29)? Top 30.

Name your duo if you voted, and explain why if you feel like it.

What cap rules?
IIRC Jordan spent a couple of years earning more than the cap and I think more than most teams spent on salary. For all the reasonable heat JR takes for being cheap and for all that "Hey go get what you can ...", there's a sting from the team perspective. So salary ...2 versus one salary normally limits you...it depends what the imagined framework is but how interpreting that plays out to the money comp over careers would be a big potential swing factor.

Modern cap situation and rules. So for cases like Scottie Pippen he'd actually be getting a max contract and not being severly being paid below market rate.

I'll edit OP to further emphasize this.

I think both players would need to be at or near the same 10-player range, rather than one player being much higher than the specified range. Otherwise, the answer could basically just be yes to everything, because one could just say you’d trade Jordan for LeBron + someone else further down on the RealGM top 100.

You're right, that's a good point. I'm sure that's not what OP meant for us to do.

Same range, or (as penbeast0 suggested) you have to use the HIGHER ranked player as the designation for the poll.

"each other" implies the former

Correct, indeed the former.

[AEnigma]

Jordan is likely winning zero titles without a top 100 teammate.

The salary cap question makes this a mess. Feels like implication is one sub-supermax plus one decent sub-all-star contract, but most of these players are getting maximum contracts (or otherwise should be). Under that framework, I might roll with Vince Carter and Rasheed Wallace just because Rasheed is the type of player who could slip under the maximum even now. Imagine the Bulls if you replaced Jordan with those two. Carter/Pippen/[Grant or Rodman]/Rasheed????? Not winning MVPs, but I am definitely beating teams like the Jazz and Blazers.

You can also do that test to see how utterly absurd the “Bird + Hakeem” answer becomes.

[WestGOAT]

Jordan is likely winning zero titles without a top 100 teammate.

The salary cap question makes this a mess. Feels like implication is one sub-supermax plus one decent sub-all-star contract, but most of these players are getting maximum contracts (or otherwise should be). On that framework, I might roll with Vince Carter and Rasheed Wallace. Like in your mind, image the Bulls if you replaced Jordan with those two. Carter/Pippen/[Grant or Rodman]/Rasheed????? Not winning MVPs, but I am definitely beating teams like the Jazz and Blazers.

You can also do that test to see how utterly absurd the “Bird + Hakeem” answer becomes.

Yeah that is kinda of the point, it's interesting to consider if you prefer locking your salary cap into whatever hypothetical duo vs choosing Jordan and having cap flexibility.

[OhayoKD]

From memory, because I'm out of town away from my PC, it's definitely top ten. The exact two players is where I have to guesstimate without my spreadsheet. Also, this is from my own rankings, not the PC panel's.

I think my 7-9 is Bird, Wilt, and Hakeem. Two of those three is probably about the lowest I could go based on my rating system for career value. That is from memory, though. The actual answer might not even be that low, but I'm sure it's accurate give or take a spot or two.

EDIT: I did not consider salary or player fit. All I did was "look at" (from memory) the career value scores on my spreadsheet. The question of how you fill out the rest of your roster makes this question too vague, imo. The answer can just be whatever you want it to be.

Hmmm

Spoiler:

Of course, a common knock on Hakeem is his consistency as an RS performer, but even over longer periods, he looks quite good. IIRC, if you use 10-year samples...

Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins, 15 win lift
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins, 15 win lift
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59

Magic Johnson(3x MVP) 1980-1991
Lakers are +0.8 without, +7.5 with

Micheal Jordan(5x MVP) 1985-1998
Bulls are +1.3 without, +6.1 with

Hakeem(1x MVP) 1985-1999
Rockets are -2.8 without. +2.5 with

You can also do that test to see how utterly absurd the “Bird + Hakeem” answer becomes.

Have you taken into account that Jordan was a dpoy and a underrated passer?(averaged a triple double going .500, wheeeeeeeeeeee!)

[CodeBreaker]

If we're talking about all players at their peak, then I'd trade peak MJ for:

26. Nikola Jokic
27. Dwyane Wade