Texas Chuck wrote:DeBlazerRiddem wrote:I just want to drop in with a quick comment - without making this about specific players - that talent (and impact) is not distributed linearly in the NBA and the price of players reflects the exponential nature of a real distribution curve. Meaning you generally have to pay significantly more than 2x the price to get 2x the impact. I don't know if its 3x or 4x or whatever - that can be up for debate in addition to specific players being over or under paid - but especially toward the top end those "little" differences are worth a whole lot more.
Its why the common refrain around here is "quality over quantity".
This was precisely why I didn't want to give Roy a set number to plug into his formula. I agree you have to pay a real premium and saying CJ costs nearly 4x as much does not mean I think he's obligated to give 4x the impact for that cost difference to be warranted.
My issue with this debate continues to be in real world examples, specifically with Philly where to to trade for CJ means they are giving up a really good player whereas Portland could trade for Curry without doing so. So we have to factor in everything into a trade--the matching salary matters a lot. Some teams have enough money they don't mind moving to match CJ and should give a better asset along with that salary to get CJ over Curry in most cases. Other teams can't realistically match the salary in a way that makes sense to also add an asset that they might give for Curry whom they can just add to what they have.
But yes Curry or Dame are worth far more than even a player as good as Kyle Lowry despite not making that much more money. Because they change the entire calculus of your team in ways Lowry can't.
The entire problem with having limits on max deals. And/or second tier stars being paid the max. Sorry, off topic but your point was right on the money there







































