More trade value: Giannis Antetokounmpo or Ty Lawson?

[BBallFreak]

True stars are worth 3 very good but not special players. And I think you are massively ignoring things if that is your take is everyone is saying Giannis is a lock.

In terms of value in this thread he's being treated like he is a lock. What's the old saying; one in the hand is worth two in the bush? Apparently that only applies to real life. Lol

[Knosh]

NBA teams ought to be risk seeking to some extent. Just to go along with the example: A 35% chance at $1000 might be better than $700 for sure. Because $700 doesn't "buy you a championship", so it's basically the same as $0, but $1000 does.

[BBallFreak]

NBA teams ought to be risk seeking to some extent. Just to go along with the example: A 35% chance at $1000 might be better than $700 for sure. Because $700 doesn't "buy you a championship", so it's basically the same as $0, but $1000 does.

$1000 players need $700 players surrounding them to win championships. And what's the point of paying a premium for the 35% chance if you're trying to win now? You're now talking about paying more for a 35% chance then you are for $700.

Then you have to consider what the Hawks are doing with a handful of guys in that $700 range.

I don't know, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I have no problem taking risks. I just don't get paying too high a premium to do it.

And $1000 doesn't buy you a championship. Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, and Karl Malone among many can testify to that.

[HartfordWhalers]

True stars are worth 3 very good but not special players. And I think you are massively ignoring things if that is your take is everyone is saying Giannis is a lock.

In terms of value in this thread he's being treated like he is a lock. What's the old saying; one in the hand is worth two in the bush? Apparently that only applies to real life. Lol

I disagree with what everyone is saying so I will misrepresent it was tacky the first 4 times. At this point, it is past that.

[BBallFreak]

I disagree with what everyone is saying so I will misrepresent it was tacky the first 4 times. At this point, it is past that.

I thought we were engaged in a civil discussion. Guess I was wrong.

Apparently my view point is allowed to be expressed once and only once. My bad.

[hege53190]

True stars are worth 3 very good but not special players. And I think you are massively ignoring things if that is your take is everyone is saying Giannis is a lock.

In terms of value in this thread he's being treated like he is a lock. What's the old saying; one in the hand is worth two in the bush? Apparently that only applies to real life. Lol

In the hand at this present moment Giannis is a 12p/6r in 28 minutes a game 6'11" 20 year old Forward. He is already unbelievably valuable at this point in time. Why are you treating him as if he is unusable in an NBA game? Right now, You have a starting caliber Forward in Giannis. He has the potential to be so much more. But if he doesn't improve at all, you still have a very valuable player.

[BBallFreak]

True stars are worth 3 very good but not special players. And I think you are massively ignoring things if that is your take is everyone is saying Giannis is a lock.

In terms of value in this thread he's being treated like he is a lock. What's the old saying; one in the hand is worth two in the bush? Apparently that only applies to real life. Lol

In the hand at this present moment Giannis is a 12p/6r in 28 minutes a game 6'11" 20 year old Forward. He is already unbelievably valuable at this point in time. Why are you treating him as if he is unusable in an NBA game? Right now, You have a starting caliber Forward in Giannis. He has the potential to be so much more. But if he doesn't improve at all, you still have a very valuable player.

I'm not treating him as if he's unusable. I just don't see him add being worth more than Lawson. That's a huge difference. If he peaked now he'd be a role player, whereas I believe Lawson could be second option on a championship contender (a specific type of contender, granted, but a contender nonetheless).

[Knosh]

NBA teams ought to be risk seeking to some extent. Just to go along with the example: A 35% chance at $1000 might be better than $700 for sure. Because $700 doesn't "buy you a championship", so it's basically the same as $0, but $1000 does.

$1000 players need $700 players surrounding them to win championships. And what's the point of paying a premium for the 35% chance if you're trying to win now? You're now talking about paying more for a 35% chance then you are for $700.

Then you have to consider what the Hawks are doing with a handful of guys in that $700 range.

I don't know, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I have no problem taking risks. I just don't get paying too high a premium to do it.

And $1000 doesn't buy you a championship. Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, and Karl Malone among many can testify to that.

I don't know what a $1000 player or a $700 player is. I just added that part to give people an idea what I mean with risk seeking and why NBA teams might be risk seeking, so let's not go too deep on that example.

If everyone values risk to some extent the price of a risky asset will be higher than the expected value. That's not paying a premium, that's paying fair value in that market.

[BBallFreak]

As I've already said I concede the point. G is more valuable. That doesn't mean I need to like it. Lol

Gimme a break guys. You win. I was wrong. It happens.

[hege53190]

In terms of value in this thread he's being treated like he is a lock. What's the old saying; one in the hand is worth two in the bush? Apparently that only applies to real life. Lol

In the hand at this present moment Giannis is a 12p/6r in 28 minutes a game 6'11" 20 year old Forward. He is already unbelievably valuable at this point in time. Why are you treating him as if he is unusable in an NBA game? Right now, You have a starting caliber Forward in Giannis. He has the potential to be so much more. But if he doesn't improve at all, you still have a very valuable player.

I'm not treating him as if he's unusable. I just don't see him add being worth more than Lawson. That's a huge difference. If he peaked now he'd be a role player, whereas I believe Lawson could be second option on a championship contender (a specific type of contender, granted, but a contender nonetheless).

In all the hypotheticals it seems like you are treating him as unusable 0 or $1,000. Lawson is good but an argument could easily be made that he is not even a top half starting PG in the Western Conference. Plus while 27 years old is not ancient it is well into your playing career and Lawson does have a history of ankle issues which could significantly decrease the length of a 5'11" players career.

I honestly believe that as soon as next year people would have a hard time choosing if they would rather have Lawson or Giannis for only one year. Now you have to start factoring in the number of average, good, great seasons still left in a 6'11" 21 year old Giannis vs. a 5'11" 28 year old Lawson.

MAAYYYBEEEE Lawson could be the second best player on a championship contender but I really doubt it. But if Lawson was to be your second best option. How big is that window open for? 2 maybe 3 years if that? He is good, he might have a number of years ahead of him I just don't see a big window where he could be the second most important player on a championship team.

[shrink]

NBA teams ought to be risk seeking to some extent. Just to go along with the example: A 35% chance at $1000 might be better than $700 for sure. Because $700 doesn't "buy you a championship", so it's basically the same as $0, but $1000 does.

$1000 players need $700 players surrounding them to win championships.

Spoken like a man who is accustomed to having $1000 players on his team, shrink said jealously.

I really like HartfordWhalers idea of quantifying this, because it allows us to bring in the concept of expected value, summing all possibilities. It also quickly allows us to pinpoint where we have differences in valuation.

We all have different views on risk aversion, and I think you and I are probably very similar on this metric. I put a lot of value on actual production vs NBA players, and I sometimes think people on REALGM often over-value the p-word (potential). To each his own, so that's cool. You and I are probably share the same thoughts on the probabilities of Giannis becoming a true superstar too.

However, I think the value gap between a very good player and a superstar is far more than $700 and $1000. This is a superstar league, and superstars define the success or failure of franchises for years. Lawson could put up 70% of the production of Durant, and still not be worth 20% of his value to a franchise.

I'm not saying Gianni's will become a superstar. That is a very hard path, and I would say it is very unlikely (I'd say lower than 35%). However, only a couple of handfuls of players even have the chance, and Giannis does. I believe that chance is high enough to make Giannis' jackpot return worth more than Lawson.

Good discussion and good points on each side. I enjoyd reading everyone's perspective in this thread, so thanks for making it.

[BBallFreak]

shrink,

That was a well thought out post and I agree that you and I probably do have very similar views on risk aversion in regards to the dreaded p-word. As I've said, I concede the point. It appears as if I'm in the considered minority. It is what it is. No big deal. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again.

Considering however that it's opinion their is only so wrong I can actually be. Lol. I still can't believe how little the Celtics got for Rondo, so what do I know?

[psimanic1]

Why would you guys do this, if you have better PG in Knight??
Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA 2m2 minutes ago
“@ZackD_0612: any truth to the bucks going after ty Lawson?” --> they have sniffed not sold Denver does it not without a star comes back

[Texas Chuck]

I've been reading this(and shaking my head at lot of the drama) and been trying to really figure out what the market for each guy would be.

For Lawson, we just saw Rondo move so we have a least the start of a baseline. And while Rondo has more accolades(all-star games, all-D teams, an all-NBA team, finished higher in MVP voting,championship etc) he also has an expiring contract, was coming off an injury, and has a very unconventional game that limited his market. And from reading people's list of top PG's I think most people view Lawson to be the superior player.

So I would peg Lawson's "value" to be a bit higher than what Rondo brought: a talented young offensive big, a moderate defensive wing prospect, an expiring, and a 1st with pretty favorable protections.

So then I try and figure out Giannis which is much harder. Some here are talking Durant(absurd imo as the offensive skills are so far short of that) or "superstar". Yeah maybe. But maybe he's never even Nic Batum. He has some unbelievable physical gifts, seems to be a really good kid willing to listen to coaching and work on his game, and has some epic highlights already. But no guarantees.

So I think if I had a pick in the last draft at what point would I have given it up for Giannis. I think I'd have taken Embiid, Parker, and even Wiggins ahead of him for sure. Maybe one or two other guys. So for me his top value last year in terms of a draft pick return would have been #4. And this year, I think I'd rather have Mudiay and Okafor and Towns. So again #4.

Now if the question becomes which guy would cost more to pry away, well its obviously Giannis, but if we are talking strictly about the price someone would be willing to give, I actually think its a lot closer than most of you do.

But Im not one who is sold that Giannis is ever even going to be an all-star type player, much less a full-blown superstar and Im not sure many teams would pay the superstar price for a guy who has such a wide range of projection to him. Some guys you know are going to be a star by this point in their 2nd year. Can't say that about Giannis. I really like the kid, but if I am being realistic I think expectations are way too high.

[Knosh]

I didn't mention Rondo because to me he doesn't belong in the same tier as Lawson based on his recent play in Boston and I feel like it's too soon to put him back in there based on his short time in Dallas. But now that you brought it up:

Yeah let's say Lawson's value is a bit higher than Rondo's. Wright got traded for that Minny pick that is likely to become two 2nds. I'd say Crowder + that Minny pick has less value than some mid first rounder outside the lottery that's going to be conveyed for sure. So let's say in terms of picks Lawson could get something like 2 picks outside the lottery.

Now I don't know much about the 2015 draft class, so I'm just going with your assertion that Giannis would go #4 in the last and the next draft.

Imo there is a noticeable difference in value between #4 and two 1sts outside the lotttery. Bulls used #16 and #19 to get to #11. Orlando used #12 and a protected '17 pick to get to #10. Maybe people didn't like those trades for the teams moving up, but that seems to be the price of moving up at the moment.

[jayjaysee]

Why would you guys do this, if you have better PG in Knight??
Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA 2m2 minutes ago
“@ZackD_0612: any truth to the bucks going after ty Lawson?” --> they have sniffed not sold Denver does it not without a star comes back

I didn't read every response in this thread. But I really doubt you will ever see a Bucks fan say Knight is better than Lawson. Most Bucks fans still think Knight should just be played in a Jack/Livingston role, despite him playing a huge role on a team that is in place to make the playoffs. I don't really understand why their opinions of him haven't changed at all this year.

So not sure if you are trying to criticize Bucks fans or Lawson with that.. Or if you actually think Knight is better than Lawson..

But no one else does. The Bucks are interested because they feel G/Parker are safe enough bets and Lawson is a great young vet PG to put with them. Mix in Sanders (if he gets his head right) and the quality role players they have (Henson/Ersan/Dudley/Mayo/Middleton).. And if either of G/Parker hit their ceilings - that team has a shot at something nice.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

I didn't mention Rondo because to me he doesn't belong in the same tier as Lawson based on his recent play in Boston and I feel like it's too soon to put him back in there based on his short time in Dallas. But now that you brought it up:

Yeah let's say Lawson's value is a bit higher than Rondo's. Wright got traded for that Minny pick that is likely to become two 2nds. I'd say Crowder + that Minny pick has less value than some mid first rounder outside the lottery that's going to be conveyed for sure. So let's say in terms of picks Lawson could get something like 2 picks outside the lottery.

Now I don't know much about the 2015 draft class, so I'm just going with your assertion that Giannis would go #4 in the last and the next draft.

Imo there is a noticeable difference in value between #4 and two 1sts outside the lotttery. Bulls used #16 and #19 to get to #11. Orlando used #12 and a protected '17 pick to get to #10. Maybe people didn't like those trades for the teams moving up, but that seems to be the price of moving up at the moment.

yeah I used Rondo just as a base value since he's the most recent "good" PG who was traded. He's not a perfect comparison for the reasons both of us listed, but it gives us a reasonable starting point.

And I agree Giannis has more value. I just don't know that's its nearly so big as is portrayed itt. If we used my estimated draft pick of #4, I think we could say using your formulation that Lawson is probably in the #8-12 range. Now in a super-draft like the Lebron/Melo/Wade/Bosh etc draft the difference there can be big. But how much difference would we all say there is between Aaron Gordon and Noah Vonleh and Dario Saric etc? Not really much at all.

So bottom line I think its close. Clearly Giannis, but not to the point it was being initimated itt. Not really at all imo.

[LarsV8]

These trade value questions are destined to fail from the moment they start. Trade value is different for every team for every player. Unless you want some weighted average after an exhaustive tallying, you are asking the wrong question. On average, I would say, yes Giannis would probably garner more interest from a lot of teams, because he is young, cheap, has upside and plays a talent weak position. And there are far more rebuilding teams with better assets looking for a player like that to add to their core. Lawson, a more established player (And better, possibly better than Giannis will ever be) would really only garner interest from teams looking for that final piece to put them over the top. Of course those teams rarely have good assets and most good teams already have a great PG, so that pool is somewhat limited.

Now, as a Rockets fan, I will say we fit the bill as an exception, and we would absolutely value Lawson more than Giannis. How our package would compare to another teams for Giannis is an excercise in futility. Who really cares? The same teams wouldn't be bidding for these two players.

[Knosh]

yeah I used Rondo just as a base value since he's the most recent "good" PG who was traded. He's not a perfect comparison for the reasons both of us listed, but it gives us a reasonable starting point.

And I agree Giannis has more value. I just don't know that's its nearly so big as is portrayed itt. If we used my estimated draft pick of #4, I think we could say using your formulation that Lawson is probably in the #8-12 range. Now in a super-draft like the Lebron/Melo/Wade/Bosh etc draft the difference there can be big. But how much difference would we all say there is between Aaron Gordon and Noah Vonleh and Dario Saric etc? Not really much at all.

So bottom line I think its close. Clearly Giannis, but not to the point it was being initimated itt. Not really at all imo.

Yeah I think the value difference between #4 and #8-12 is mostly the chance to snag someone that drops because of injury and such. Like if Embiid wasn't quite as hyped pre-injury or even if it's not Philly picking at #3, but a team that cares more about the next season, you could see someone like Embiid being available at #4. Can't really happen at #8-12.

[BBallFreak]

As I've already said I concede the point. G is more valuable. That doesn't mean I need to like it. Lol

Gimme a break guys. You win. I was wrong. It happens.

props to ya showing humility, keep that in mind next time we are sharing views on the same topic

Hey just because you were "right" (and it's in quotes because this is all purely opinion) doesn't mean you have to be an *** about it.