Draft pick value explained.

[JTB]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Amnesty doesn’t really exist anymore.  You would stretch the cap hit instead over a longer period of time which is the opposite of what we would want to do.  Take the hit now when we don’t expect to need the money and have it gone by the time we envision competing/contending.

I say trade Dennis or Bazemore to a team that can give us back expiring contracts and just take the hit on parsons deal which is only 2 years left then.

i believe Dennis and bazemore are good solid pieces for teams that are looking for reliable role guys and depending on the situation of the team as far as who’s around him, Dennis could have an all star year.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, JTB said:

Ok but don’t we have an amesty or something like that, that we can use?

why not get Parsons ...use the amnesty on his God awful contract to take the amount down per year in what we would owe him that way if the rookies we select at 3 & 4 do turn into rising stars it won’t be as tough to sign them.

is that not possible?

Amnesty doesn't exist and even if it did we couldn't use it.  Since Parson's didn't originally sign his contract with us we would not be able to provide amnesty.  The most we can do is stretch his remaining salary of $49 million over 5 years so the cap hit in each year is $9.8 million.  I would hate it if we did that.  That's $10 million in dead money that counts against the cap you can't do anything with, can't trade it, nothing - it just sits there staring you in the face.  Detroit is still paying Josh Smith for 3 more years at $5 mill a year after stretching him with 3 years left on his original deal.

We don;t have need of capspace to sign FAs, so take the hit now if we are trading for him.

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, JTB said:

I say trade Dennis or Bazemore to a team that can give us back expiring contracts and just take the hit on parsons deal which is only 2 years left then.

i believe Dennis and bazemore are good solid pieces for teams that are looking for reliable role guys and depending on the situation of the team as far as who’s around him, Dennis could have an all star year.

If teams are sending us expirings they will also be looking for an asset or two to take Dennis and Baze.

[JTB]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

If teams are sending us expirings they will also be looking for an asset or two to take Dennis and Baze.

Maybe so but i say speed up the rebuild process if possible but many may not agree to that.

For example id let prince (who would be an additional asset) go as he’s already 24...will be 25 during next season! By the time we are really ready to compete again prince will likely be around 27 or 28 at earliest.

if we are going to go young mind as well go completely young and try to build something with guys all around the same ages.

[KB21]

You know, if I were running Minnesota, I'd offer the Grizzlies Andrew Wiggins for Chandler Parsons straight up.  Get Wiggins's contract completely off the roster.  

[nathan2331]

You know, if I were running Minnesota, I'd offer the Grizzlies Andrew Wiggins for Chandler Parsons straight up.  Get Wiggins's contract completely off the roster.  

I get the logic in making that move, but by the time Parsons comes off the books, if you have KAT and Butler on max deals, you won't have money to sign anyone else. Unless they expect Wiggins to regression further that be a backwards move for them.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, nathan2331 said:

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

You know, if I were running Minnesota, I'd offer the Grizzlies Andrew Wiggins for Chandler Parsons straight up.  Get Wiggins's contract completely off the roster.  

 

I get the logic in making that move, but by the time Parsons comes off the books, if you have KAT and Butler on max deals, you won't have money to sign anyone else. Unless they expect Wiggins to regression further that be a backwards move for them.

You still get a negative player off your roster.  

[nathan2331]

You still get a negative player off your roster.  

True, but if the draft pick isn't good you basically ruined the rebuild. Wiggins should be moved, but I think they need veteran players, not a rookie and a contract that won't produce. They've got to do something that'll appease Butler and KAT.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, nathan2331 said:

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

You still get a negative player off your roster.  

 

True, but if the draft pick isn't good you basically ruined the rebuild. Wiggins should be moved, but I think they need veteran players, not a rookie and a contract that won't produce. They've got to do something that'll appease Butler and KAT.

Wasn’t KB suggesting Wiggins for Parsons with no pick moving? Pretty sure that was the thought.

[nathan2331]

Wasn’t KB suggesting Wiggins for Parsons with no pick moving? Pretty sure that was the thought.

I misread then. That would be be a really bad trade for Minnesota.

[thecampster]

This goes back to the original concept presented here, taken from. This is the stuff I was talking about. Answer given by NBA Agent Chris Patrick.

https://hoopshype.com/2018/06/27/how-nba-agents-prepare-for-free-agency/

 

Chris Patrick: “When it comes to your asking price, it’s data-based. With Robert Covington, for example, we started putting comps together the year before. I actually have the list of guys here. We looked at Kent Bazemore’s deal, Allen Crabbe’s deal, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist’s deal and some others. We had a lot of comps – 17 different players. Basically, you’re just taking all the numbers and putting them together. With Covington, out of that group of 17 players, his value was [determined to be] $18.43 million per year; I’ll never forget that. He was in the top half of the group in nearly every stat category. Then, we took off $3 million per year because the Sixers were a bad team when he posted those numbers. When you’re the worst team in the league, numbers are going to be inflated. So that’s how Covington’s deal came to be four years, $62 million. That’s where the number came from.”]

[thecampster]

Just now, thecampster said:

This goes back to the original concept presented here, taken from. This is the stuff I was talking about. Answer given by NBA Agent Chris Patrick.

https://hoopshype.com/2018/06/27/how-nba-agents-prepare-for-free-agency/

 

The what set of answers is worth the read.

[thecampster]

On 6/19/2018 at 10:18 PM, thecampster said:

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/23837465/kevin-pelton-weekly-mailbag-including-2018-nba-draft-lottery-trades

 

Okay so we've had tons of conversations this week with people not understanding the negative value of bad contracts vs the value of draft picks.  This writer does a very good job of explaining what it would take to wrestle a pick away from a team that needs to unload a bad salary. It is much less than you might think.

 

 

Reviving this. Since we are so close to the draft and rumors are flying. People talking about taking on a pick for salary, etc.  This article is mandatory reading (unless you want to sound like a dufus).

[High5]

I still think that's a flawed way to look at things. Teams that take on bad contracts for draft picks usually aren't looking for immediate results. It's expected to take a loss for a season or two before the team reaps the rewards. I'm sure Doncic probably outperformed his projection, but imagine passing on him because you didn't want to pay Parsons $49 million over 2 seasons. (in the scenario the writer provided)

[thecampster]

I see your point. But there is a guy (or team of guys) in every war room trying to make these exact calls from a financial only perspective. Putting a dollar figure on transactions. It is a business. I'd lean toward the real metric is more complicated, not less.

[AHF]

30 minutes ago, thecampster said:

I see your point. But there is a guy (or team of guys) in every war room trying to make these exact calls from a financial only perspective. Putting a dollar figure on transactions. It is a business. I'd lean toward the real metric is more complicated, not less.

It is definitely more complicated.  I think you also have to recognize that the value of a dollar of cap room is variable depending on a team's circumstances.  OKC's present circumstance shows that every dollar of cap room they can free up is worth more than 5x that in real dollars.  In contrast, a $ is worth less for a team like the 2018-19 Atlanta Hawks that had no potential for taxes or penalties and plenty of room with no intent to go after high dollar free agents -- every cap dollar given up has a cost but is mostly about the opportunity cost for what deals you can do to acquire assets.  Every dollar of cap room for the Hawks (or any rebuilding team) is worth dramatically more when they intend to really spend that cap space on long-term contracts than it is when they are in the "lose games, develop youngsters and acquire assets" mode.  So there are a lot of factors that have to go into this analysis and it will depend a lot on the precise circumstances for each team.

[High5]

3 hours ago, thecampster said:

I see your point. But there is a guy (or team of guys) in every war room trying to make these exact calls from a financial only perspective. Putting a dollar figure on transactions. It is a business. I'd lean toward the real metric is more complicated, not less.

It's much more complicated. Mr. Pelton presented it as a simple math problem and ignored a lot of factors. IMO

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[REHawksFan]

16 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

 

 

So based on this chart, even paying a premium, Atlanta should be able to move up from 10 to 5 by just offering 35 to Cleveland.  That seems light to me.  I guess the logical question is how much of a premium is needed?  IF the draft is as flat from 4-14 as most claim, doesn't seem like a big premium would be warranted.  But for some reason 10+35 doesn't seem like it would be enough for Cleveland to bite.   

 

[thecampster]

2 hours ago, REHawksFan said:

So based on this chart, even paying a premium, Atlanta should be able to move up from 10 to 5 by just offering 35 to Cleveland.  That seems light to me.  I guess the logical question is how much of a premium is needed?  IF the draft is as flat from 4-14 as most claim, doesn't seem like a big premium would be warranted.  But for some reason 10+35 doesn't seem like it would be enough for Cleveland to bite.   

 

A good rule of thumb involves "incentive". You have to make it worth the higher team's time and 20% or more over value might get it done. Remember this a value chart. It is not a guaranteed trade chart. You have to add incentive.