Domejandro wrote:2. I’ll be honest, I think you guys are somewhat overestimating the value gap between Karl-Anthony Towns and Lauri Markkanen. The value is the massive difference in owed salary that empowers Minnesota to resign other players under the Second Apron (and get a former Sixth Man of the Year who can sporadically drop thirty). I think once you expand beyond that, you start to get really lost in the sauce on what teams would offer.
I could be wrong, but that’s my perspective. I don’t think Utah is trading Lauri Markkanen unless they are getting a haul (which is subsidized by a team that prefers the long-term security of Towns’ contract, even if overpaid).
You could be completely right too. We’re just posters on the internet, speculating on the trade value of a player that’s never been traded. In fact, I have changed my views about the trade value of expensive players, after seeing the big returns for high-priced players in actual trades. I summed up my beliefs in a “Worst Contracts” thread.
shrink wrote:For years I would have listed the same players that others have mentioned. I have always believed that a player’s trade value could be determined by the projected range of his future production compared to his salary. Pay a player $40 mil for $20 mil of production, and that is a negative contract.
Lately, I have been more accepting of the fact that this is not the economic reality among NBA GM’s (though for many, it probably should be). Again and again we see our most “untradable” contracts get dealt. Again and again, contracts that people vow will take two of three 1st rounders to move, get traded for neutral value, or even a protected 1st. Our view of the Worst Contracts does not match the prices we see in reality.
The goal of most GMs is to build a team that can win a championship. Players that have the chance (not certainty) to do that get paid in free agency - and free agency, even with all the convolutions of CBA rules, remains one of our closest measures of GM valuation. As GM’s try to construct their championship teams and make trades, they seem to look at whether a player has the skillset where there is a possibility that they can be a difference-maker. Again, not the certainty, and not even the expected outcome.
For example, in years past, I’d have thought about including Zach LaVine. To me (internet poster), he isn’t worth his contract and unlikely to ever be worth it, with defensive issues and injury concerns. That said, there is a chance in his range of futures that he becomes a critical scorer for a contender and pushes them over the top. If more than one GM sees that, he has more trade value than those players that don’t have the experience, or skill-level to matter, and who can be easily replaced with similar players.
My new standard for a bad contract are the players with the most money on the deal, that it is almost impossible to see that rosy future where they make a difference. Who has become “just a guy,” gets paid, and doesn’t have a future?
Towns is better offensively and defensively than Lauri Markannen. KAT is an elite shooter, and he has demonstrated he can still be great next to talented players. This gap in skill-level doesn’t pay off for average players, but for key pieces, the better player can be the difference between a win and a loss, and why we see extreme contracts and trade packages offered for these type of players.
