Mavs/Hawks/Lakers/Wolves

[MNRunLeft]

No reason for the Wolves to be in this deal as constructed. The Wolves already have the Piston's pick and don't see any reason they dump DDV to move up a handfull of spots from early round 2. DDV is a below market rate contract not something the Wolves are looking to dump.

[Mavrelous]

Meh Dallas has movable salary so no interest in paying more assets because he's cheap for one year. That isn't really the value gain you are selling. Give him even one extra year, and okay. But here, its largely inconsequential so if I get a guy with a higher salary but who doesn't cost me a lottery pick, an unprotected 1st, and Gafford that seems a much better approach for a guy you acknowledge is a stopgap.

This is intrinsic value within his contract, if we devalue trade value based on expiring, then we need to appreciate the value of underpaid years.
I disagree that this isn't value for Dallas specifically, I find the claim to be absurd, Mavs will be paying at least 60% of the cap on AD and Kyrie, they need to build a roster around these 2 with the rest of the cap, cheap starting level PG who can fill for Kyrie is very much a life saver.

And thats without getting into if Dallas will pay him. They wouldn't pay Brunson. They wouldn't pay Luka freaking Doncic. We don't know if they will pay Kyrie again, so I'm pretty sus about assuming they will pay Reaves. And to pay that much you need to feel like the chances of giving him his next contract are reasonably high.

That's actually a fair point, but both Brunson and Luka were mistakes of epic proportions, do we evaluate trades knowing the FO is incompetent or do we evaluate trades based on their relevance? I chose the latter, but I understand if someone will try to wear Nico's hat, I just don't know how to imitate incompetency.

[Texas Chuck]

This is intrinsic value within his contract, if we devalue trade value based on expiring, then we need to appreciate the value of underpaid years.
I disagree that this isn't value for Dallas specifically, I find the claim to be absurd,.

I talk all the time about the value of underpaid years. Go read the Deni thread for me trying to lay that out for instance....

But for just the one? Where I am having to badly overpay in assets to get a $12M guy instead of a $20M when I can match either without killing my depth and the $12M comes with both more uncertainty about retaining and if able to comes with a much greater cost?

Yeah if you are worrying about building around expensive AD/Kyrie, he's a much worse option unless he's a much better player. But again, you agree he isn't.

You disagree which is cool, but my take is far from absurd. I'm considering the risk and the finances in future years. Not just the one bargain year. Seems smart, not absurd.

And it isn't just a measure of incompetency. Its about money. They didn't think Brunson was worth even the bargain deal the Knicks gave him. They didn't think Luka was worth the supermax. So I have real doubts about them shelling out $30M AAV for Reaves, but I bet some team will. And him being older and having never gotten a huge deal, I'm going to assume top dollar is a priority for him until he shows it isn't.

[ReggiesKnicks]

There is a small negative regarding underpaid players which needs to be taken into account: Inability to Extend.

Reaves isn't extendable on his current deal, unless you think he would extend starting at 22.3 million, which I suppose is possible but unrealistic.

[Astaluego]

There is a small negative regarding underpaid players which needs to be taken into account: Inability to Extend.

Reaves isn't extendable on his current deal, unless you think he would extend starting at 22.3 million, which I suppose is possible but unrealistic.

They can't renew it, but you still have an advantage, having the bird rights, right? Normally the contenders (I understand as more attractive destinations) don't have much salary space

[Mavrelous]

There is a small negative regarding underpaid players which needs to be taken into account: Inability to Extend.

Reaves isn't extendable on his current deal, unless you think he would extend starting at 22.3 million, which I suppose is possible but unrealistic.

Indeed, but a player of Reaves profile
- Starter quality, but not a star
- Young enough to sign multi year w/o worry, but not young enough to build around
- should be paid above the MLE, and will trigger BYC if S&T

Are pretty safe bets to re-sign, they aren't targeted by cap space teams and require the team holding his right cooperation to pull off S&T.

I just don't see where the overpay is, 1 pick on draft day, and 1 future pick, I can't think of good starters that will require less, quick glance on the valuation of who I consider a worse player, Kobe White, he's always valued at 2 1sts and he has similar contract situation, Reaves is better and plays both on and off ball, and is proven to be part of winning situations...