Minnesota - Washington

[SO_MONEY]

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.

It is nice to see a reasonable argument from a Mod on this board that doesn't resort to calling things silly or making backhanded insults, given their ability to operate somewhat in impunity. Koudos good sir! I will offer my minor constrictive criticism in that the bold/underlined is only for on court value, not trade value. That, on court value doesn't always equal trade value, especially when we are talking about contracts that are negative. Because there is a salary cap you need to factor in both value based on production and financial ramifications or lost opportunity due to the overall obligation. This is where I see valuations often go wrong.

We are actually talking about trade value. Wall is unquestionably worth more than Wiggins in on the court value assuming he gets back to 80-90% of his pre-injury form.

Oh it seemed like you were only talking production based value. I don't disagree that Wall (hopefully) is more valuable on the court. Super MAX contracts are awful though, nowhere near as prohibitive as Wiggins when it comes to team building. What I am saying is you have to count Wall's on court value being equal to Wall and what he and his contract allows you to get in addition and What Wiggins' on court value is and what he and his contract allows you to get in addition. This may very by teams, obviously, but fewer teams are in a position to take super MAX money back and hurt their future than are. This factors into trade value if not from something as simple as supply and demand.

[Hogified05]

Wiggins + Dieng + FRP
x
Beal + Mahimi + Bertans

Washington change Beal in Wiggins and an useless Mahimi in Gorgui Dieng (overpaid, but useful)
in addition Minnesota acquire D.Bertans, and send top-10 protected first round pick

Minnesota:
Teague - Beal - Okogie - Covington - KAT
Napier - Culver - Bertans - Layman/KBD - Vonleh/Bell

lol I was looking for ways to get Beal to Orlando by unloading Wall as well which would make it more appetizing for Washington to deal Beal. Came across an interesting 4 team deal that works in the trade machine.

Orlando gets: Beal, Teague

Minnesota gets: Wall and Booker

Phoenix gets: Wiggins, Covington and DJ Augustin

Washington gets: Fournier, Bamba, Culver and Tyler Johnson

Booker would need to demand a trade though, which isn't crazy with all the losing and dysfuntion in Phoenix. Phoenix would probably also need a couple 1st rounders to do it. They are the ones that need some convincing but Wiggins is still young and better than getting nothing for Booker.

Minny would do it to make Towns happy. Booker is like his BFF. Might not want Wall's contract but if he came back healthy the next year thats a pretty strong 3.

Orlando becomes a top 4/3 seed in the East.

Washington gets to start over with a young nucleus of Brown, Culver, Rui and Bamba. Just would need to find a PG and that's an exciting young core to me.

Completely doubt it happens but thought it was a fun trade to come up with ha

[shrink]

Booker would need to demand a trade though, which isn't crazy with all the losing and dysfuntion in Phoenix.

Just like KAT, Booker signed a five year max extension, without a player option on the end. Even if he demanded a trade, he has no leverage to get one for three years. PHX will just say, “nope - you’re too valuable to us.”

[pcbothwel]

It is nice to see a reasonable argument from a Mod on this board that doesn't resort to calling things silly or making backhanded insults, given their ability to operate somewhat in impunity. Koudos good sir! I will offer my minor constrictive criticism in that the bold/underlined is only for on court value, not trade value. That, on court value doesn't always equal trade value, especially when we are talking about contracts that are negative. Because there is a salary cap you need to factor in both value based on production and financial ramifications or lost opportunity due to the overall obligation. This is where I see valuations often go wrong.

We are actually talking about trade value. Wall is unquestionably worth more than Wiggins in on the court value assuming he gets back to 80-90% of his pre-injury form.

Oh it seemed like you were only talking production based value. I don't disagree that Wall (hopefully) is more valuable on the court. Super MAX contracts are awful though, nowhere near as prohibitive as Wiggins when it comes to team building. What I am saying is you have to count Wall's on court value being equal to Wall and what he and his contract allows you to get in addition and What Wiggins' on court value is and what he and his contract allows you to get in addition. This may very by teams, obviously, but fewer teams are in a position to take super MAX money back and hurt their future than are. This factors into trade value if not from something as simple as supply and demand.

You actually answered your own question/ argued your own point. And I think nate somewhat means the same thing.
Which is... Not every dollar matters/is valued the same in the NBA as it is in the NFL due to the soft cap rules.

Any teams looking add Wall would not be doing so as the 1st piece. He would be a compliment the same way Russ is (I know Russ has more value... just best example)
So if a team has already signed their Max FA or made a previous trade for a star, then it would behoove them to trade for the effective, more expensive Wall than it would for the net negative player that is Wiggins.

There is a 30M difference between the cap and lux tax. Taking on Wall for the additional 10-12M is easily the better value.

[HartfordWhalers]

If Wall is projected to be an average NBA starter, (not fifth starter, but not a star), with average NBA health, I think that pegs his value at around $16-$18 mil. If he can reach this level for half of this season, that’s $8.5 mil of production, plus three years of $17, so about $60 mil. That seems fair to me - he was seeing issues (particularly defensively) before the major injury, but he also started higher than an average starter too, so I’d take this middle ground. He’s paid $169, so that’s a negative $109. Others are welcome to disagree with this valuation - perhaps some GM who needs a PG would pay him more.

I think there is a lot of hyperbole about Wiggins, but I suspect if he was a free agent this summer, some team would have given him the MLE. He plays a position of need, never gets hurt, has length and athleticism, and I suspect some needy GM would convince himself that they could reach him. Four years is about $40 mil. Wiggins is paid $121, so removing $40 mil is .. negative $81.

I think that's an excellent way at looking at it.

The one wrinkle is that Wall won't play this year and 80% of his salary will be paid by insurance.

If you ignore this year and make this same calculation next summer, Wall will be paid $128M for $51M of production, or a negative $77M. Wiggins will be paid $94M for $30M of production, or negative $64M. Their "values" will be much closer in this calculation.

And finally, we can obviously quibble at the assigned valuations. You say Wall is "worth" $17M a year and Wiggins is "worth" $10M, for a delta of $7M. If the delta between their two respective valuations rises from your subjective $7M estimate to someone else's subjective estimate $11.5M, then Wall becomes worth more than Wiggins.

It is nice to see a reasonable argument from a Mod on this board that doesn't resort to calling things silly or making backhanded insults, given their ability to operate somewhat in impunity. Koudos good sir! I will offer my minor constrictive criticism in that the bold/underlined is only for on court value, not trade value. That, on court value doesn't always equal trade value, especially when we are talking about contracts that are negative. Because there is a salary cap you need to factor in both value based on production and financial ramifications or lost opportunity due to the overall obligation. This is where I see valuations often go wrong.

Shots like this at the boards mods without provocation won't be accepted.

Sincerely,
One of those mods.