MN board Asset-Value-Scale...

[Danimals]

I have been playing with the idea of developing a asset-value ranking system for us to use on this board. I would like some help. So far I've been thinking about something like this:

+5. True #1's. (Kobe, Lebron, Paul, Howard, etc.) Limited to 10 or less total players.
+4. Dirk?
+3. #1 overall draft pick? Jefferson? Love?
+2. Rubio? Fynn? 2010 expirings?
+1. 2nd Round Pick? Brewer? Gomes? Sessions?
0. Neutral Value
-1.
-2. Pavlobitch?
-3. Gadzuric's contract?
-4. Brand's contract?
-5. Arenas' contract?

Assets could have a seperate value to the Wolves vs league wide. I would at least like us to do something like this to get a consensus value for our own assets. Anyone have any input? Or a better idea in general?

[Foye]

I'd just rank our assets like this...


Love>Jefferson>#2010 1st>Flynn>Rubio's rights>2010 expirings>Cha 1st/Utah 1st=Gomes=Brewer=Sessions>>>>>2nd round pick(s)=Jawai=Hollins>>>>>>>>>>>Pavlobitch

[allweneedisLOVE]

Pretty good idea. Then you should have a -100 for the Brian Cardinals

[Krapinsky]

You have too big a drop between +2 and +1. I might put the positive side on a 1-10 scale and leave the negative side as is.

[Casperkid23]

I like the idea. Kind of wish that rater which was brought up in a thread a while back worked like this, where posters would get a flash card of a player and then hit the appropriate button for their total value. There would be more positive than negative players, since the negative guys are normally those with contracts too long for their production - but a lot of those positives will be listed as 1's.

For the Timberwolves, I'd go with:
3: Love, Jefferson, Rubio (the thought of him), MIN #1 (untradeable until draft night)
2: Flynn
1: CHA/UTA 1sts, Gomes, Ellington (of late), Pekovic, 2010 Expirings of Blount/Cardinal/Wilkins
0: Brewer, 2010 expirings of Pavlovic/Pecherov/Jawai/Tucker
-1: Sessions (poor guy)
-2: Hollins

[Casperkid23]

You have too big a drop between +2 and +1. I might put the positive side on a 1-10 scale and leave the negative side as is.

I agree with there being too big of a drop. I failed to mention that in my response, but if it gets too complicated then it will lose it's luster.

[Foye]

Pretty good idea. Then you should have a -100 for the Brian Cardinals

No. He's an expiring

[moss_is_1]

No one on our roster has negative value. Pavlobitch may suck but he's a cheap expiring, and the last few games he hasn't been as terrible.

[C.lupus]

Are you talking value as a trade asset or value as a team-fit asset? Kind of a minor detail but I'd rank Love and Jefferson differently depending on th answer.

[Woomanchu]

Wrong thread. My bad.

[B Calrissian]

I have one master plan with one option to it.

Draft Evan Turner
Trade Rubio for Wes Johnson
Trade Pekovic for Solomon Alabi
Sign Brandon Haywood

Lineup being....

C Jefferson/Haywood/Alabi
PF Love/Jefferson
SF Johnson/Brewer
SG Turner/Ellington
PG Flynn/Sessions

The one option would be to trade Jefferson for Bynum and keep Pekovic

C Bynum/Pekovic
PF Love/Pekovic
SF Johnson/Brewer
SG Turner/Ellington
PG Flynn/Sessions

I think Turner and Johnson would be great complements to Love and Jefferson on the defensive end because they are both highly aware. Have great length and speed. They can collapse and help block shots and still have enough speed to recover to challenge jumpers. Turner on the offensive end can do everything except be a great shooter. He is servicable now, but can get even better. Johnson can do everything but dribble well. He has a great form. He is highly efficient. He can run and finish. He can post up and finish with length. Everyone would fit in the triangle. This lineup would help makeup for Flynn's scoring mindset. The way I would envision it, Turner would be the #1, Jefferson the #2, Flynn the #3, Johnson the #4, Love the #5. Haywood would come in and be the defensive 5 and strong rebounder we need. Brewer will be the #7. He will run, run, and run some more. Be a strong defensive presence off the bench. Ellington can come in an shoot, assuming he is still getting more and more comfortable.

Wrong thread.
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=975977

Just kidding Klomp.

[Danimals]

Good comments guys. I'd like to see this as a sticky eventually so when posters from other boards wander in they can see how we value our assets. I don't like the idea of just put our assets in order of most to least value, they need to be weighed against other assets league wide to make it more quantitative and less qualitative. I want to use as consise a scale as possible, because it makes it easier to use and assets values's are more of a range than precise number anyway.

[shrink]

+5. -- - -
+4. Love, Jefferson, unprotected MIN 1st
+3. Rubio, 2010 Raw Cap space
+2. Flynn, Pekovic
+1. Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st, UTA 1st, maybe Brewer is getting there
0. Neutral Value (2010 Expirings),

[Krapinsky]

Here's my chart : )

7 =
1) Superstar caliber player

5 =
1) All star caliber player $10 million or less
2) Draft pick 1


4 =
1) All Star caliber player $10 million or more
2) Fringe all star caliber player $10 million or less
3) Draft pick 2-3


3 =
1) Fringe all star caliber player $10 million or more
3) Draft picks 4-10

2 =
1) Draft picks 10-20
2) Starter $5 million or less

1 =
1) Draft picks 20-30
2) Role Player $5 million or less
3) Starter $5-10 million


1/2 = Draft 31-45

0 = 1) Starter $10-$15 million
3) All expiring contracts
4) Draft 46-60

-1 =
1) Role player $5-10 million ( -1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)
2) End of bench (EOB) player $5 million or less ( - 1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)
3) Starter $15 million or more ( -1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)

-2 =
1) Role player $10-15 million (-1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)
2) EOB player $5-10 million (-1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)

-3 =
1) Role player $15 million or more (-1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)
2) EOB $10-15 million (-1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)

-4 =
1) EOB $15 million or more (-1 for each $10 million owed after year 1)

------------------------------------------
Wolves

Jefferson = 3
Love = 4
Brewer = 1
Ellington = 1
Session = 1
Gomes = 1
Wolves Pick = 4
Bobs pick = 2
Utah pick = 1
Everyone else = 0

[Breakdown777]

I'm so confused right now. Buzzed a bit as well, which is helping the confusion.

So is everyone making their own rating system and we are voting on one that everyone uses, or are we all justifying how and why we personally rate our assets?

I vote one system, and Dr. K's seems the best, although it may be too confusing for outsiders. I also think big exp. contracts should be worth a bit more, as they can net us a hypothetically better return.

[C.lupus]

I like Dr. K's system as well. My only change would be to give expiring contracts a little positive value, maybe +1, since they do have positive trade value. I also would put Jefferson at +4 as I view him as an all-star caliber player. He's not technically an all star but he is the same caliber player as West or Boozer. And Flynn and Rubio should be 3s.

[Krapinsky]

I like Dr. K's system as well. My only change would be to give expiring contracts a little positive value, maybe +1, since they do have positive trade value. I also would put Jefferson at +4 as I view him as an all-star caliber player. He's not technically an all star but he is the same caliber player as West or Boozer. And Flynn and Rubio should be 3s.

First, thanks for buying onto they system. I think if you work a trade out using the numbers you will see why it makes sense to have expiring contracts at 0. They have positive trade value in that they can be used to net starters in the $10-$15 million range. This is a player like Kenyon Martin or Maggette.

I put West and Boozer as 3's as well. It doesn't matter that in the past they made an all star game. Using this system, you ask what are they right now taking everything into consideration. West and Boozer are not all stars. Neither is Jefferson.

As for Flynn and Rubio, there is another general rule I forgot to mention, and that is players hold their draft value for two years. Since both were top 6 picks, they are both + 3's as well. This takes into account their untapped potential and their low salary.

[Danimals]

I like the good doctors system as well. This is exactly where I wanted to go with this idea. My only suggestion would be to simplify it a little bit further. I'd like to see it condensed to +5 through -3. What other suggestions are out there?

[mandurugo]

The Dr.'s system seems pretty good to me as well. Though it does seem odd that the wolves with the 2nd worst record in the NBA doesn't have any negative assets. It might be interesting to add this to game threads and compare the wolves to the opposing team. I'll leave that for a more ambitious poster however.

[C.lupus]

The Dr.'s system seems pretty good to me as well. Though it does seem odd that the wolves with the 2nd worst record in the NBA doesn't have any negative assets. It might be interesting to add this to game threads and compare the wolves to the opposing team. I'll leave that for a more ambitious poster however.

Well this is the Wolves board.

But seriously, the only reason, at least in my mind, that this is true is because all (or at least most) of the sucking talent are on expiring contracts and the rest of the team is young and on reasonable contracts. If Sasha were a long-term piece, he'd be a -5.