Noel's Trade Value is at its Highest Now

[hookshot199]

I mean, I'd trade a lot for D'Lo, I think he'd fit perfectly with what we have here. He'd play similarly as an off guard with Simmons, but could still thrive at PG with such a complimentary skill set.

Just curious because I respect your views: What would you trade for him?

I don't know, reason I choose not to post much in the trade threads and forum.

Thank you for an honest answer.

My view is that the new CBA rewards teams like the Sixers who made astute picks. It rewards Hinkie's tanking.

We will have Embiid, Simmons, Saric, Luwawu, Holmes and whoever we pick in the June draft (possibly two players, at least one guard) for between six and eight years. That's seven players. We'll have Noel under contract for four=eight.

Then we have to decide on Covington, TJ and Ilyasovic (essentially how much). Possibly two more=10.

We'll get something back for Okafor, probably not a top-10, but not garbage either.

Until we know what we're going to get in the draft and even if Brown's going to be back, all trade speculation is premature.

[marcush]

I still believe in Russel. He's more of a 2 for me though, I like his off ball potential but it's still useful to learn the ropes at PG.

[TTP]

Their salaries are not roughly equivalent. Russell has two more years of rookie contract. That's the crux of the argument and why everything else you're bringing up is not relevant when comparing market value.

I'm confused why you keep referencing our team's financial situation. It has zero relevance in assessing individual players' market values.

Your assumption about my assumption is both incorrect and irrelevant. I said "could trade". I even used the word "hypothetically" in the previous sentence. At no point did I state that they wanted to trade him and it would be irrelevant to my point anyways.

I probably value Noel as well as defense in general as much as anyone here. I may or may not think his ceiling is higher than Russell's. He's still not worth anywhere near what Russell is.

Why are you bringing up Evan Turner? He has one of the most negative value contracts in the league. Noel is an asset right now. Turner is not.

Then fine. I think Noel is worth $20 mil, give or take, based on the Mozgov, Deng, Turner and McCollum signings. The Lakers are currently sitting on a payroll of $94 mil. They're approximately $10 mil below the cap. So, it may matter that Noel is currently $4.3 mil and Russell is $5.3 mil.

But what does matter - and this is from the Sixers perspective - is whether we sign a proven player to four years at $80 mil or $90 mil versus a kid who could be made redundant by the Lakers pick this year.

You're making a 'funny money' argument. If you believe Noel is a better player and has more upside, then you sign him. If you believe that Russell is a better player and has more upside, you don't trade him. I don't think the Lakers should give up on Russell yet. And why should the Sixers unload Noel?

Look, this all comes back to one statement that I'm contesting you on. Specifically your claim that Noel is worth more than Russell.

It has nothing to do with whether the Lakers or Sixers "should" move Russell and Noel and nothing to do with team fit.

It has nothing to do with either team's ability to pay either player.

I didn't say that I believe Noel is a better player and has more upside. You keep trying to put words into my mouth which is pretty interesting when one can just reference the quoted posts for evidence.

I too believe that we should pay Noel but that has nothing to do with comparing the values of Noel and Russell.

If you think he's worth 20 million in FA and he gets 20 million in 6 months, he won't be worth much anymore once he signs because he will be priced at market value and a team that wanted him more than that could offer him more in free agency, assuming he gets offered less than the max. Russell will be priced well under market value for the next two years (with a team option on the 4th year of his rookie deal).

If you think he will get 20 million but will be worth considerably more in the future, that's a more reasonable argument, because then you'd still consider him an asset at his price even after he signs. However, this is not a reflection of market value and does not impact the argument of "who is worth more" when considering trade value now.

[dorkestra]

I wouldn't trade Noel for Russell, personally. We're about to have access to better guards in the draft while being able to keep Noel.

[BigSleep333]

Their salaries are not roughly equivalent. Russell has two more years of rookie contract. That's the crux of the argument and why everything else you're bringing up is not relevant when comparing market value.

I'm confused why you keep referencing our team's financial situation. It has zero relevance in assessing individual players' market values.

Your assumption about my assumption is both incorrect and irrelevant. I said "could trade". I even used the word "hypothetically" in the previous sentence. At no point did I state that they wanted to trade him and it would be irrelevant to my point anyways.

I probably value Noel as well as defense in general as much as anyone here. I may or may not think his ceiling is higher than Russell's. He's still not worth anywhere near what Russell is.

Why are you bringing up Evan Turner? He has one of the most negative value contracts in the league. Noel is an asset right now. Turner is not.

Then fine. I think Noel is worth $20 mil, give or take, based on the Mozgov, Deng, Turner and McCollum signings. The Lakers are currently sitting on a payroll of $94 mil. They're approximately $10 mil below the cap. So, it may matter that Noel is currently $4.3 mil and Russell is $5.3 mil.

But what does matter - and this is from the Sixers perspective - is whether we sign a proven player to four years at $80 mil or $90 mil versus a kid who could be made redundant by the Lakers pick this year.

You're making a 'funny money' argument. If you believe Noel is a better player and has more upside, then you sign him. If you believe that Russell is a better player and has more upside, you don't trade him. I don't think the Lakers should give up on Russell yet. And why should the Sixers unload Noel?

Look, this all comes back to one statement that I'm contesting you on. Specifically your claim that Noel is worth more than Russell.

It has nothing to do with whether the Lakers or Sixers "should" move Russell and Noel and nothing to do with team fit.

It has nothing to do with either team's ability to pay either player.

I didn't say that I believe Noel is a better player and has more upside. You keep trying to put words into my mouth which is pretty interesting when one can just reference the quoted posts for evidence.

I too believe that we should pay Noel but that has nothing to do with comparing the values of Noel and Russell.

If you think he's worth 20 million in FA and he gets 20 million in 6 months, he won't be worth much anymore once he signs because he will be priced at market value and a team that wanted him more than that could offer him more in free agency, assuming he gets offered less than the max. Russell will be priced well under market value for the next two years (with a team option on the 4th year of his rookie deal).

If you think he will get 20 million but will be worth considerably more in the future, that's a more reasonable argument, because then you'd still consider him an asset at his price even after he signs. However, this is not a reflection of market value and does not impact the argument of "who is worth more" when considering trade value now.

based on what? playing in la on a rookie-contract? nobody here give me facts, just "i like him", "he is worth more than noel at 20m"

[TTP]

we all fans are so funny. Ask 30 GM's if they would trade DLO for Noel and they hung up on you but we as won't trade Noel for DLO

thats just your opinion. you dont know what these 30 GM's would do. i wouldnt trade noel for dlo either. dlo is all hype. he is the equivalent of okafor on the guard position, but some sixers fans think we should get rid of okafor for literally nothing. dlo is in a perfect situation as the primary PG and he really dont show he is worth the hype if you look at his stats. not a great ts% for a guard, bad ast/to ratio, bad defense, bad lockerroom influence. just the fact he is still on his rookie contract doesnt make him more valuebale for a team. its not an accident we are a better team, since noel is in the rotation over okafor. noel can be useful on offense, if he is played the right way (picknroll, lobs), while dlo is a big negative on d and also not effective on offense.

PLEASE keep dlo

Russell is 17th out of 85 point guards in RPM (and 40th out of 85 defensively) despite being very young in a high usage role.

This whole "he's not athletic therefore he's capped" argument is such nonsense. Half of the guys preaching that wouldn't be making that argument if he were on the Sixers. Tons of incredible players have limitations. Lebron can't shoot outside. Steph Curry and James Harden aren't particularly athletic and are defensive liabilities. CP3 is short and not long.

[TTP]

Then fine. I think Noel is worth $20 mil, give or take, based on the Mozgov, Deng, Turner and McCollum signings. The Lakers are currently sitting on a payroll of $94 mil. They're approximately $10 mil below the cap. So, it may matter that Noel is currently $4.3 mil and Russell is $5.3 mil.

But what does matter - and this is from the Sixers perspective - is whether we sign a proven player to four years at $80 mil or $90 mil versus a kid who could be made redundant by the Lakers pick this year.

You're making a 'funny money' argument. If you believe Noel is a better player and has more upside, then you sign him. If you believe that Russell is a better player and has more upside, you don't trade him. I don't think the Lakers should give up on Russell yet. And why should the Sixers unload Noel?

Look, this all comes back to one statement that I'm contesting you on. Specifically your claim that Noel is worth more than Russell.

It has nothing to do with whether the Lakers or Sixers "should" move Russell and Noel and nothing to do with team fit.

It has nothing to do with either team's ability to pay either player.

I didn't say that I believe Noel is a better player and has more upside. You keep trying to put words into my mouth which is pretty interesting when one can just reference the quoted posts for evidence.

I too believe that we should pay Noel but that has nothing to do with comparing the values of Noel and Russell.

If you think he's worth 20 million in FA and he gets 20 million in 6 months, he won't be worth much anymore once he signs because he will be priced at market value and a team that wanted him more than that could offer him more in free agency, assuming he gets offered less than the max. Russell will be priced well under market value for the next two years (with a team option on the 4th year of his rookie deal).

If you think he will get 20 million but will be worth considerably more in the future, that's a more reasonable argument, because then you'd still consider him an asset at his price even after he signs. However, this is not a reflection of market value and does not impact the argument of "who is worth more" when considering trade value now.

based on what? playing in la on a rookie-contract? nobody here give me facts, just "i like him", "he is worth more than noel at 20m"

He's young, pre-draft models liked him a lot, he's graded fairly well, and he's on a rookie deal.

Also, any player that's an asset (which Russell and most players on rookie deals are) will be worth more than Noel priced at market value. Unless he accepts a discount or receives a max, he will be accepting the highest offer anyone will give him - thus he will not be an asset. This is a key point that needs to be understood when considering value between players.

[BigSleep333]

we all fans are so funny. Ask 30 GM's if they would trade DLO for Noel and they hung up on you but we as won't trade Noel for DLO

thats just your opinion. you dont know what these 30 GM's would do. i wouldnt trade noel for dlo either. dlo is all hype. he is the equivalent of okafor on the guard position, but some sixers fans think we should get rid of okafor for literally nothing. dlo is in a perfect situation as the primary PG and he really dont show he is worth the hype if you look at his stats. not a great ts% for a guard, bad ast/to ratio, bad defense, bad lockerroom influence. just the fact he is still on his rookie contract doesnt make him more valuebale for a team. its not an accident we are a better team, since noel is in the rotation over okafor. noel can be useful on offense, if he is played the right way (picknroll, lobs), while dlo is a big negative on d and also not effective on offense.

PLEASE keep dlo

Russell is 17th out of 85 point guards in RPM (and 40th out of 85 defensively) despite being very young in a high usage role.

This whole "he's not athletic therefore he's capped" argument is such nonsense. Half of the guys preaching that wouldn't be making that argument if he were on the Sixers. Tons of incredible players have limitations. Lebron can't shoot outside. Steph Curry and James Harden aren't particularly athletic and are defensive liabilities. CP3 is short and not long.

i like rpm as an additional stat, but its one part of many. rpm also has massive flaws. i mean avery bradley is 87th of 99 in drpm for SG's.

he is shooting average for his career from 3 at 35,2 %

he ranks 74th of 105 in TS% amongst guards

he ranks 39th of 44 in AST/TO ratio amongst PG

everybody will agree after watching him play, hes definately not a good defender. 9/10 guys will tell you he is bad on d.


he only relies on his 2nd pick status and his lucky role on a bad lakers team, where he can get his high usage numbers. if we had no embiid and noel, okafor would have a similar image like dlo has now. he would suck at d, has his shiny moments on offense, while being inefficent at a high usage rate. (while i think okafor could be more efficient than dlo is)

factoring in his bad attitude he is complete headcase and waste of time.

i didnt even mentioned that missing athleticism yet..

really dont get it what so many people like about him. his somewhat unique way dribbling the ball or what? his snitching skills?

[BigSleep333]

Look, this all comes back to one statement that I'm contesting you on. Specifically your claim that Noel is worth more than Russell.

It has nothing to do with whether the Lakers or Sixers "should" move Russell and Noel and nothing to do with team fit.

It has nothing to do with either team's ability to pay either player.

I didn't say that I believe Noel is a better player and has more upside. You keep trying to put words into my mouth which is pretty interesting when one can just reference the quoted posts for evidence.

I too believe that we should pay Noel but that has nothing to do with comparing the values of Noel and Russell.

If you think he's worth 20 million in FA and he gets 20 million in 6 months, he won't be worth much anymore once he signs because he will be priced at market value and a team that wanted him more than that could offer him more in free agency, assuming he gets offered less than the max. Russell will be priced well under market value for the next two years (with a team option on the 4th year of his rookie deal).

If you think he will get 20 million but will be worth considerably more in the future, that's a more reasonable argument, because then you'd still consider him an asset at his price even after he signs. However, this is not a reflection of market value and does not impact the argument of "who is worth more" when considering trade value now.

based on what? playing in la on a rookie-contract? nobody here give me facts, just "i like him", "he is worth more than noel at 20m"

He's young, pre-draft models liked him a lot, he's graded fairly well, and he's on a rookie deal.

Also, any player that's an asset (which Russell and most players on rookie deals are) will be worth more than Noel priced at market value. Unless he accepts a discount or receives a max, he will be accepting the highest offer anyone will give him - thus he will not be an asset. This is a key point that needs to be understood when considering value between players.

you dont have to worry in that regard with me. of course its very important if someone is on a max deal vs. a rookiecontract. a good player with max like money is still more worth than a below avg player on a rookie contract

[hookshot199]

Look, this all comes back to one statement that I'm contesting you on. Specifically your claim that Noel is worth more than Russell.

It has nothing to do with whether the Lakers or Sixers "should" move Russell and Noel and nothing to do with team fit.

It has nothing to do with either team's ability to pay either player.

I didn't say that I believe Noel is a better player and has more upside. You keep trying to put words into my mouth which is pretty interesting when one can just reference the quoted posts for evidence.

I too believe that we should pay Noel but that has nothing to do with comparing the values of Noel and Russell.

If you think he's worth 20 million in FA and he gets 20 million in 6 months, he won't be worth much anymore once he signs because he will be priced at market value and a team that wanted him more than that could offer him more in free agency, assuming he gets offered less than the max. Russell will be priced well under market value for the next two years (with a team option on the 4th year of his rookie deal).

If you think he will get 20 million but will be worth considerably more in the future, that's a more reasonable argument, because then you'd still consider him an asset at his price even after he signs. However, this is not a reflection of market value and does not impact the argument of "who is worth more" when considering trade value now.

based on what? playing in la on a rookie-contract? nobody here give me facts, just "i like him", "he is worth more than noel at 20m"

1) He's young, pre-draft models liked him a lot, he's graded fairly well, and he's on a rookie deal.

Also, any player that's an asset (which Russell and most players on rookie deals are) will be worth more than Noel priced at market value. 2)Unless he accepts a discount or receives a max, he will be accepting the highest offer anyone will give him - thus he will not be an asset. This is a key point that needs to be understood when considering value between players.

(1) So let me see if I understand this. Noel, if he's paid what he's worth (around $20 mil) and joins Embiid to become one of the best front-court tandems in years, will not be an asset. That's brilliant.

(2) At least one pre-draft model graded Okafor and Russell almost equally - and equally in the key 'athleticism' and 'quickness' categories.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jahlil-okafor
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/dangelo-russell

[TTP]

thats just your opinion. you dont know what these 30 GM's would do. i wouldnt trade noel for dlo either. dlo is all hype. he is the equivalent of okafor on the guard position, but some sixers fans think we should get rid of okafor for literally nothing. dlo is in a perfect situation as the primary PG and he really dont show he is worth the hype if you look at his stats. not a great ts% for a guard, bad ast/to ratio, bad defense, bad lockerroom influence. just the fact he is still on his rookie contract doesnt make him more valuebale for a team. its not an accident we are a better team, since noel is in the rotation over okafor. noel can be useful on offense, if he is played the right way (picknroll, lobs), while dlo is a big negative on d and also not effective on offense.

PLEASE keep dlo

Russell is 17th out of 85 point guards in RPM (and 40th out of 85 defensively) despite being very young in a high usage role.

This whole "he's not athletic therefore he's capped" argument is such nonsense. Half of the guys preaching that wouldn't be making that argument if he were on the Sixers. Tons of incredible players have limitations. Lebron can't shoot outside. Steph Curry and James Harden aren't particularly athletic and are defensive liabilities. CP3 is short and not long.

i like rpm as an additional stat, but its one part of many. rpm also has massive flaws. i mean avery bradley is 87th of 99 in drpm for SG's.

he is shooting average for his career from 3 at 35,2 %

he ranks 74th of 105 in TS% amongst guards

he ranks 39th of 44 in AST/TO ratio amongst PG

everybody will agree after watching him play, hes definately not a good defender. 9/10 guys will tell you he is bad on d.


he only relies on his 2nd pick status and his lucky role on a bad lakers team, where he can get his high usage numbers. if we had no embiid and noel, okafor would have a similar image like dlo has now. he would suck at d, has his shiny moments on offense, while being inefficent at a high usage rate. (while i think okafor could be more efficient than dlo is)

factoring in his bad attitude he is complete headcase and waste of time.

i didnt even mentioned that missing athleticism yet..

really dont get it what so many people like about him. his somewhat unique way dribbling the ball or what? his snitching skills?

The Celtics defense has been worse for the last year and a half when Bradley is on the court. This year, the Celtics are giving up 9.5 more points per 100 poss when Bradley is on the court. His defense has been incredibly overrated the last couple years. If anything, I think DRPM provides a better reflection of Bradley's defensive contributions than we are led to believe elsewhere so I don't understand using that example to serve as an example of the stat's failure.

He's shooting league average from 3 but only 69.2% of his 3s have been assisted. He'd likely look a lot better if he weren't creating so many of his own shots.

Don't really care about what 9 out of 10 guys will tell me. More than 9 out of 10 guys are going to be less informed and less intelligent than I am. 9 out of 10 guys are probably telling me Avery Bradley has been an incredible defender this year when they haven't put any effort into investigating the claim, instead choosing to regurgitate whatever the media and subjective awards like 1st Team All-Defense tell them (which is also voted on by the largely uninformed media!).

He's not putting up empty stats on a bad team. Just about every advanced stat grades him fairly well.

[BigSleep333]

Russell is 17th out of 85 point guards in RPM (and 40th out of 85 defensively) despite being very young in a high usage role.

This whole "he's not athletic therefore he's capped" argument is such nonsense. Half of the guys preaching that wouldn't be making that argument if he were on the Sixers. Tons of incredible players have limitations. Lebron can't shoot outside. Steph Curry and James Harden aren't particularly athletic and are defensive liabilities. CP3 is short and not long.

i like rpm as an additional stat, but its one part of many. rpm also has massive flaws. i mean avery bradley is 87th of 99 in drpm for SG's.

he is shooting average for his career from 3 at 35,2 %

he ranks 74th of 105 in TS% amongst guards

he ranks 39th of 44 in AST/TO ratio amongst PG

everybody will agree after watching him play, hes definately not a good defender. 9/10 guys will tell you he is bad on d.


he only relies on his 2nd pick status and his lucky role on a bad lakers team, where he can get his high usage numbers. if we had no embiid and noel, okafor would have a similar image like dlo has now. he would suck at d, has his shiny moments on offense, while being inefficent at a high usage rate. (while i think okafor could be more efficient than dlo is)

factoring in his bad attitude he is complete headcase and waste of time.

i didnt even mentioned that missing athleticism yet..

really dont get it what so many people like about him. his somewhat unique way dribbling the ball or what? his snitching skills?

The Celtics defense has been worse for the last year and a half when Bradley is on the court. This year, the Celtics are giving up 9.5 more points per 100 poss when Bradley is on the court. His defense has been incredibly overrated the last couple years. If anything, I think DRPM provides a better reflection of Bradley's defensive contributions than we are led to believe elsewhere so I don't understand using that example to serve as an example of the stat's failure.

He's shooting league average from 3 but only 69.2% of his 3s have been assisted. He'd likely look a lot better if he weren't creating so many of his own shots.

Don't really care about what 9 out of 10 guys will tell me. More than 9 out of 10 guys are going to be less informed and less intelligent than I am. 9 out of 10 guys are probably telling me Avery Bradley has been an incredible defender this year when they haven't put any effort into investigating the claim, instead choosing to regurgitate whatever the media and subjective awards like 1st Team All-Defense tell them (which is also voted on by the largely uninformed media!).

He's not putting up empty stats on a bad team. Just about every advanced stat grades him fairly well.

telling someone bradley is one of the worst defenders at his position is completely insane. i agree with on that 9/10 argument in general. i also think im the smartest ass in every room but in this case, you are totally rpm-drunk. dont tell this story anybody please

[TTP]

based on what? playing in la on a rookie-contract? nobody here give me facts, just "i like him", "he is worth more than noel at 20m"

1) He's young, pre-draft models liked him a lot, he's graded fairly well, and he's on a rookie deal.

Also, any player that's an asset (which Russell and most players on rookie deals are) will be worth more than Noel priced at market value. 2)Unless he accepts a discount or receives a max, he will be accepting the highest offer anyone will give him - thus he will not be an asset. This is a key point that needs to be understood when considering value between players.

(1) So let me see if I understand this. Noel, if he's paid what he's worth (around $20 mil) and joins Embiid to become one of the best front-court tandems in years, will not be an asset. That's brilliant.

(2) At least one pre-draft model graded Okafor and Russell almost equally - and equally in the key 'athleticism' and 'quickness' categories.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jahlil-okafor
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/dangelo-russell

Yeah you still don't understand it.

If we assume a player acts rationally and accepts the highest offer he is given, then he will be priced at or above his market value. I would define an asset in the NBA sense as something that would require you to give up value to obtain. At the point that Noel signs his contract, you would not need to give up anything of value to obtain him. You could obtain him simply by offering the most money.

Similarly, trade restrictions aside, Team A wouldn't be able to sign him for 20 million and then trade him immediately for a first round pick to Team B because, since he's not earning max money, Team B could just offer him 21 million instead. There is no incentive for Team B to give up anything of value for him at this point when they could just offer more than Team A if they really wanted him.

Thus he will likely not be an asset at the point he signs that contract.

[TTP]

i like rpm as an additional stat, but its one part of many. rpm also has massive flaws. i mean avery bradley is 87th of 99 in drpm for SG's.

he is shooting average for his career from 3 at 35,2 %

he ranks 74th of 105 in TS% amongst guards

he ranks 39th of 44 in AST/TO ratio amongst PG

everybody will agree after watching him play, hes definately not a good defender. 9/10 guys will tell you he is bad on d.


he only relies on his 2nd pick status and his lucky role on a bad lakers team, where he can get his high usage numbers. if we had no embiid and noel, okafor would have a similar image like dlo has now. he would suck at d, has his shiny moments on offense, while being inefficent at a high usage rate. (while i think okafor could be more efficient than dlo is)

factoring in his bad attitude he is complete headcase and waste of time.

i didnt even mentioned that missing athleticism yet..

really dont get it what so many people like about him. his somewhat unique way dribbling the ball or what? his snitching skills?

The Celtics defense has been worse for the last year and a half when Bradley is on the court. This year, the Celtics are giving up 9.5 more points per 100 poss when Bradley is on the court. His defense has been incredibly overrated the last couple years. If anything, I think DRPM provides a better reflection of Bradley's defensive contributions than we are led to believe elsewhere so I don't understand using that example to serve as an example of the stat's failure.

He's shooting league average from 3 but only 69.2% of his 3s have been assisted. He'd likely look a lot better if he weren't creating so many of his own shots.

Don't really care about what 9 out of 10 guys will tell me. More than 9 out of 10 guys are going to be less informed and less intelligent than I am. 9 out of 10 guys are probably telling me Avery Bradley has been an incredible defender this year when they haven't put any effort into investigating the claim, instead choosing to regurgitate whatever the media and subjective awards like 1st Team All-Defense tell them (which is also voted on by the largely uninformed media!).

He's not putting up empty stats on a bad team. Just about every advanced stat grades him fairly well.

telling someone bradley is one of the worst defenders at his position is completely insane. i agree with on that 9/10 argument in general. i also think im the smartest ass in every room but in this case, you are totally rpm-drunk. dont tell this story anybody please

Why is the Celtics' defense 9.5 points per 100 possessions worse when Bradley is on the court this year? Why was it 5.5 points per 100 worse last year? Surely an elite defender would make the defense better when he's playing. He may or may not be one of the worst defenders at his position right now but he's certainly not elite like most suggest. I think it's not impossible that he's a negative defender right now, thus I think it's pretty reasonable that DRPM reflects that.

[BigSleep333]

The Celtics defense has been worse for the last year and a half when Bradley is on the court. This year, the Celtics are giving up 9.5 more points per 100 poss when Bradley is on the court. His defense has been incredibly overrated the last couple years. If anything, I think DRPM provides a better reflection of Bradley's defensive contributions than we are led to believe elsewhere so I don't understand using that example to serve as an example of the stat's failure.

He's shooting league average from 3 but only 69.2% of his 3s have been assisted. He'd likely look a lot better if he weren't creating so many of his own shots.

Don't really care about what 9 out of 10 guys will tell me. More than 9 out of 10 guys are going to be less informed and less intelligent than I am. 9 out of 10 guys are probably telling me Avery Bradley has been an incredible defender this year when they haven't put any effort into investigating the claim, instead choosing to regurgitate whatever the media and subjective awards like 1st Team All-Defense tell them (which is also voted on by the largely uninformed media!).

He's not putting up empty stats on a bad team. Just about every advanced stat grades him fairly well.

telling someone bradley is one of the worst defenders at his position is completely insane. i agree with on that 9/10 argument in general. i also think im the smartest ass in every room but in this case, you are totally rpm-drunk. dont tell this story anybody please

Why is the Celtics' defense 9.5 points per 100 possessions worse when Bradley is on the court this year? Why was it 5.5 points per 100 worse last year? Surely an elite defender would make the defense better when he's playing. He may or may not be one of the worst defenders at his position right now but he's certainly not elite like most suggest. I think it's not impossible that he's a negative defender right now, thus I think it's pretty reasonable that DRPM reflects that.

well basketball is still a teamsport. its complex. thats why those +/- stats never tell the whole story.

[TTP]

telling someone bradley is one of the worst defenders at his position is completely insane. i agree with on that 9/10 argument in general. i also think im the smartest ass in every room but in this case, you are totally rpm-drunk. dont tell this story anybody please

Why is the Celtics' defense 9.5 points per 100 possessions worse when Bradley is on the court this year? Why was it 5.5 points per 100 worse last year? Surely an elite defender would make the defense better when he's playing. He may or may not be one of the worst defenders at his position right now but he's certainly not elite like most suggest. I think it's not impossible that he's a negative defender right now, thus I think it's pretty reasonable that DRPM reflects that.

well basketball is still a teamsport. its complex. thats why those +/- stats never tell the whole story.

Right it's complex. What's your argument for why we should accept as a given that he's an elite defender though? His advanced defensive stats aren't good and the team is worse when he's on the court. Do you have evidence for the opposing side other than the media's opinion?

[BigSleep333]

i dont give a **** about the media's opinion. i saw bradley often enough to KNOW he is a good defender

[hookshot199]

1) He's young, pre-draft models liked him a lot, he's graded fairly well, and he's on a rookie deal.

Also, any player that's an asset (which Russell and most players on rookie deals are) will be worth more than Noel priced at market value. 2)Unless he accepts a discount or receives a max, he will be accepting the highest offer anyone will give him - thus he will not be an asset. This is a key point that needs to be understood when considering value between players.

(1) So let me see if I understand this. Noel, if he's paid what he's worth (around $20 mil) and joins Embiid to become one of the best front-court tandems in years, will not be an asset. That's brilliant.

(2) At least one pre-draft model graded Okafor and Russell almost equally - and equally in the key 'athleticism' and 'quickness' categories.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jahlil-okafor
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/dangelo-russell

Yeah you still don't understand it.

If we assume a player acts rationally and accepts the highest offer he is given, then he will be priced at or above his market value. I would define an asset in the NBA sense as something that would require you to give up value to obtain. At the point that Noel signs his contract, you would not need to give up anything of value to obtain him. You could obtain him simply by offering the most money.

Similarly, trade restrictions aside, Team A wouldn't be able to sign him for 20 million and then trade him immediately for a first round pick to Team B because, since he's not earning max money, Team B could just offer him 21 million instead. There is no incentive for Team B to give up anything of value for him at this point when they could just offer more than Team A if they really wanted him.

Thus he will likely not be an asset at the point he signs that contract.

I understand perfectly. I try to make sense of people's gibberish for a living. This is not an economic theory, at least not for the Sixers. We have no budgetary (cap) constraints. Other teams do, the Lakers being one of them.

This is about assembling a team and choosing the best players to get us a) into the playoffs and then b) deep into the playoffs.

If management decides that Noel is a core player, then your talk about 'trading' him is irrelevant. Why do you keep insinuating that management wants to trade him? All signs indicate that they've made a decision and want to trade Okafor.

So Noel will be an 'asset' if they choose to keep him and he produces.

Got it?

[BigSleep333]

Why is the Celtics' defense 9.5 points per 100 possessions worse when Bradley is on the court this year? Why was it 5.5 points per 100 worse last year? Surely an elite defender would make the defense better when he's playing. He may or may not be one of the worst defenders at his position right now but he's certainly not elite like most suggest. I think it's not impossible that he's a negative defender right now, thus I think it's pretty reasonable that DRPM reflects that.

well basketball is still a teamsport. its complex. thats why those +/- stats never tell the whole story.

Right it's complex. What's your argument for why we should accept as a given that he's an elite defender though? His advanced defensive stats aren't good and the team is worse when he's on the court. Do you have evidence for the opposing side other than the media's opinion?

ill give you another example. fasten your rpm-seatbelt. embiid ranks 29th of centers in drpm. if you are really intelligent, you would take every single stat with a grain of salt. mix all the infos you can get, including oldschool "eye-test" and then make your conclusion out of it.

dont tell me here, there are 28 better defenders at center in this league. we should immediately lynch every guy whos telling this nonsense

[TTP]

(1) So let me see if I understand this. Noel, if he's paid what he's worth (around $20 mil) and joins Embiid to become one of the best front-court tandems in years, will not be an asset. That's brilliant.

(2) At least one pre-draft model graded Okafor and Russell almost equally - and equally in the key 'athleticism' and 'quickness' categories.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jahlil-okafor
http://www.nbadraft.net/players/dangelo-russell

Yeah you still don't understand it.

If we assume a player acts rationally and accepts the highest offer he is given, then he will be priced at or above his market value. I would define an asset in the NBA sense as something that would require you to give up value to obtain. At the point that Noel signs his contract, you would not need to give up anything of value to obtain him. You could obtain him simply by offering the most money.

Similarly, trade restrictions aside, Team A wouldn't be able to sign him for 20 million and then trade him immediately for a first round pick to Team B because, since he's not earning max money, Team B could just offer him 21 million instead. There is no incentive for Team B to give up anything of value for him at this point when they could just offer more than Team A if they really wanted him.

Thus he will likely not be an asset at the point he signs that contract.

I understand perfectly. I try to make sense of people's gibberish for a living. This is not an economic theory, at least not for the Sixers. We have no budgetary (cap) constraints. Other teams do, the Lakers being one of them.

This is about assembling a team and choosing the best players to get us a) into the playoffs and then b) deep into the playoffs.

If management decides that Noel is a core player, then your talk about 'trading' him is irrelevant. Why do you keep insinuating that management wants to trade him? All signs indicate that they've made a decision and want to trade Okafor.

So Noel will be an 'asset' if they choose to keep him and he produces.

Got it?

When asking which player is worth more, you should be considering it from a neutral third party perspective that is deciding which of the two players they would offer more value for. The financial situations of the teams holding each player does not matter - it should not affect what other teams would be willing to offer.

The bolded is irrelevant to the question. If your initial discussion point had been about whether to keep Noel, it would be relevant. The Sixers' goals and direction has no relevance to the topic.

When have I once insinuated that management wants to trade him? You keep making this up. I'm speaking purely in hypothetical statements.

The debate is not about whether Noel or Russell is worth more to their respective teams. The debate is not about whether it makes sense to keep Noel. The debate is about which player is worth more (has the highest market value).