165bows wrote:ReggiesKnicks wrote:165bows wrote:Well yes the laughing emoji indicates humor obviously but things are funny since they have truth to them, zero people talk about trading Brown for Siakam anymore like they used to, even on the Boston board.
Right, and Indiana would never entail swapping out Siakam for Brown.
I think the point I am trying to get at, which nobody here seems to acknowledge, is value of players is inherently tied to the team situations.
I find this interesting, because a lot of people here fail to acknowledge this. Jaylen Brown on 20 teams in the NBA is a suckers contract, but because Boston is loaded with talent and spacing, it utilizes Jaylen Brown (a relatively league average volume scorer who isn't a good passer or playmaker and positive but not elite defender) to a point where they are a title contender with him.
But put Jaylen Brown on a team where he has a larger offensive burden and his efficiency plummets, his short-comings as a player are highlighted and all of a sudden we are questioning why a low-end playoff team or lottery team is paying Jaylen Brown 285 Million over 5 years and he is widely seen as a negative and one of the worst contracts in the NBA.
I find it fascinating and interesting and it peaks my interest far more than the neanderthal "production doesn't equal salary, bad contract".
I have no clue what sort of axe this about to grind, but it is humorous you selected a guy on the top-25 trade list as one of your top-10 worst contracts, and also think I'm trolling rather than you after you chose not to select the various obvious choices like Zion, or even Jamal Murray.
I already wrote an entire page about why I think Jamal Murray has been better by a clear and significant margin over Jaylen Brown.
I don't have an "axe to grind". I'm interested in the philosophy of bad contracts and how their teams and cast affect their value. That is, to me, interesting. It makes me think. It fancies me in a thought-exercise and allows me to really dive-deep in thinking about basketball in a way looking at contract value and production don't.
So no I have less than zero interest in rehashing the various JB value conversations, try to imagine the endless thousands of words that have been exchanged on the Boston board and elsewhere about him and his merits and trade value, there is zero under the sun new to add here so enjoy your fascination.
This has nothing to do with Jaylen Brown and you clearly aren't reading what I wrote. Jaylen Brown is an example
of the thought exercise. This is what fascinated me.
I think the point I am trying to get at, which nobody here seems to acknowledge, is value of players is inherently tied to the team situations.
If you're incapable of viewing Jaylen Brown on his contract on a bad team, then that's your own decision in how you want to approach this exercise.
All I'm trying to do is elicit additional thought about how a players situation and a teams situation are just as important as the actual salary number and production numbers.
Since you're emotionally tied to the Celtics, maybe think about Michael Porter Jr. A crucial part of Denver and their entire offensive and defensive scheme. A bad team wouldn't pay MPJ but because of his fit and scalability and skill-set on Denver, for them he is worth the contract.
