Everything Derozan

[Mindlessness]

It is, very.

I think you bet Bonus Jonas.

Not sure though.

[Wild-ling#1]

1. Lets not compare DD's one and only good season (and ignore 5 others) with LMA's multiple excellent seasons. .... He is not a primary guy. And when you do bring in a primary guy eventually, his scoring is not going to stay the same (his bread and butter sorta speak). This is a 15pts 5rbs 4 ast guy we are talking about. And we should be paying him close to Max for his services?

I am not saying lets get rid of DD at all cost. But lets not get stuck in mediocrity by paying a mediocre talent star level money, weather the market dictates it or not.

If you still believe in 20 million +. Lets agree to disagree.

The only thing I see wrong with a market valuation is a "blip" or an "out-lier". The "one whacky GM" scenario. But if, say, a third of the league would take him (if they could) at that value, that's different, right?

It's ok to think you can beat the market. Some can. We hope Masai can. But that doesn't actually mean he's not worth market value. Right?

And sure in a non-cap-world, LaMarcus might actually be worth $40M. And LeBron $50. Or more. But that doesn't mean, either, that DeMar isn't worth Max-money in this league. Now. As constituted. Not to you, personally (Fine - really). And not to the true "Indiana Jones bargain hunters/value maximizers" out there. But can you really just keep insisting that "he's just not worth max-money" (under the foregoing assumptions)?

[DanH]

Market value in the NBA can be terribly wrong. For about a decade now, mid level exception sized deals have been consistently the worst deals signed by teams, simply because the market for deals like that is saturated with buyers. Yes, everyone is getting poor value for their MLE deals (most everyone anyway) but that is indeed the market price.

Same goes for deals signed next summer, and probably the summer after - the market is skewed by an abundance of max cap space situations that should not be occurring, just like every year (this effect has decreased lately with the tiered MLE system in place the past few years) the MLE level free agent market has been skewed by having 30 teams consistently able to bid on players in that price range.

Overpaying a player because it is their market value is certainly a defensible move. It's just a bad one. Some will say that you have to cater to the market, to which I say, why? This oarticular market will last one or two summers. And even if it didn't, for a decade or more teams have consistently found themselves regretting the deals they hand out via the MLE - sometimes not getting the player is a better move than paying market value - especially when said market value is not driven by the player valuation primarily, but by an unusual cap room scenario.

[Machine]

Market value in the NBA can be terribly wrong. For about a decade now, mid level exception sized deals have been consistently the worst deals signed by teams, simply because the market for deals like that is saturated with buyers. Yes, everyone is getting poor value for their MLE deals (most everyone anyway) but that is indeed the market price.

Same goes for deals signed next summer, and probably the summer after - the market is skewed by an abundance of max cap space situations that should not be occurring, just like every year (this effect has decreased lately with the tiered MLE system in place the past few years) the MLE level free agent market has been skewed by having 30 teams consistently able to bid on players in that price range.

Overpaying a player because it is their market value is certainly a defensible move. It's just a bad one. Some will say that you have to cater to the market, to which I say, why? This oarticular market will last one or two summers. And even if it didn't, for a decade or more teams have consistently found themselves regretting the deals they hand out via the MLE - sometimes not getting the player is a better move than paying market value - especially when said market value is not driven by the player valuation primarily, but by an unusual cap room scenario.

Great post

[Superjudge]

Market value in the NBA can be terribly wrong. For about a decade now, mid level exception sized deals have been consistently the worst deals signed by teams, simply because the market for deals like that is saturated with buyers. Yes, everyone is getting poor value for their MLE deals (most everyone anyway) but that is indeed the market price.

Same goes for deals signed next summer, and probably the summer after - the market is skewed by an abundance of max cap space situations that should not be occurring, just like every year (this effect has decreased lately with the tiered MLE system in place the past few years) the MLE level free agent market has been skewed by having 30 teams consistently able to bid on players in that price range.

Overpaying a player because it is their market value is certainly a defensible move. It's just a bad one. Some will say that you have to cater to the market, to which I say, why? This oarticular market will last one or two summers. And even if it didn't, for a decade or more teams have consistently found themselves regretting the deals they hand out via the MLE - sometimes not getting the player is a better move than paying market value - especially when said market value is not driven by the player valuation primarily, but by an unusual cap room scenario.

All depends on if you want to keep your talent or not Dan. Its easy to sit back as a fan and say 'no way', a little harder to justify if your job s to put a winning team on the floor.

[Wild-ling#1]

What's an avatar bet. Sounds Serious.

It is, very.

You're not going to tell me. Fuuuuuuuuuuuck!

[golden]

All depends on if you want to keep your talent or not Dan. Its easy to sit back as a fan and say 'no way', a little harder to justify if your job s to put a winning team on the floor.

Simple supply and demand. If you're talking about high efficiency / high usage DD from 2 seasons ago, then that player is in high demand and worth close to max dollars. But if you're paying max money for last season's low efficiency / high usage DD, then that kind of player's production can be replaced by somebody like Nick Young at a much lower cost. Yes, Swaggy P.

Personally, I really like Demar, but the concern is that he's really only had one good season which isn't even his most recent one. That's a fairly high risk for an big overpay.

[Wild-ling#1]

Market value in the NBA can be terribly wrong. For about a decade now, mid level exception sized deals have been consistently the worst deals signed by teams, simply because the market for deals like that is saturated with buyers. .

(Eschewing any of the abstractions and detail of micro-economics) .....

What you're saying is like saying a shovel wasn't worth, say, $500, in the Yukon ... during the gold-rush. And people who bought them were "over-paying".

In a way, "yes". In a way, "no".

But there is no more reliable valuation than "market-value". (Tho you can alter the way a market works in various ways ... like with our health care. Or a salary cap., etc., etc.).

And if you wanna dig for gold, there are only so many goods you can substitute for a shovel. ... A dinner-fork does something similar... but ...

[JWash]

Damn is this Raptors Republic or my freshman year economics course?

[Wild-ling#1]

Damn is this Raptors Republic or my freshman year economics course?

Damn that dan! Clever?! Seems he's fashioned an indestructible (and fancy-pants) argument that NBA market-value is simply "unreliable" ... even across-the-board "wrong".

So, apparently, we just have to trust him when he says DeRozan ain't worth "Jack"

(We sure shouldn't trust ourselves ... or certain NBA GM'S ... whose identities will be determined later ... I suspect by any one (or all) of Dan, Snooch and McHappy)

Word.

[raptors999]

Damn that dan! Clever?! Seems he's fashioned an indestructible (and fancy-pants) argument that NBA market-value is unreliable.

So, apparently, we just have to trust him when he says DeRozan ain't worth "Jack"

(We're sure shouldn't trust ourselves ... or certain NBA GM'S ... whose identities will be determined later ... I suspect by any one (or all) of Dan, Snooch and McHappy)

Word.

Proof - Amir @ 12M

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[mcHAPPY]

Simple supply and demand. If you're talking about high efficiency / high usage DD from 2 seasons ago, then that player is in high demand and worth close to max dollars. But if you're paying max money for last season's low efficiency / high usage DD, then that kind of player's production can be replaced by somebody like Nick Young at a much lower cost. Yes, Swaggy P.

Personally, I really like Demar, but the concern is that he's really only had one good season which isn't even his most recent one. That's a fairly high risk for an big overpay.

And that is my fear.

Even if he returns to his all-star season form this season, will it last?

I think that is a fair question because it didn't carry over this season. If it had, this thread likely has 75-100 less pages.

[Simplicity]

If DD somehow accepts his player option, do we have enough to sign Durant this year and then give DD a 5 year (almost) max contract next year?

I feel like this is plausible with Masai on helm and would be the best outcome for DeMar. Imagine a line up of Lowry/DD/KD/DC/JC

[mcHAPPY]

If DD somehow accepts his player option, do we have enough to sign Durant this year and then give DD a 5 year (almost) max contract next year?

I feel like this is plausible with Masai on helm and would be the best outcome for DeMar. Imagine a line up of Lowry/DD/KD/DC/JC

DC at 4 is not a good idea IMO.

But to answer your question, no, not possible.

Raps are borderline to have enough for max offer to 7-9 year vet only if everyone is renounced, including DeRozan.

[DanH]

Damn that dan! Clever?! Seems he's fashioned an indestructible (and fancy-pants) argument that NBA market-value is simply "unreliable" ... even across-the-board "wrong".

So, apparently, we just have to trust him when he says DeRozan ain't worth "Jack"

(We sure shouldn't trust ourselves ... or certain NBA GM'S ... whose identities will be determined later ... I suspect by any one (or all) of Dan, Snooch and McHappy)

Word.

I've made no argument that anyone should trust my talent and contract valuations. Simply an argument about using the market as a measuring tool when said market is actually a flawed sub-market - the market valuation of NBA players is probably pretty good overall (even if I do disagree with some skill valuations I can understand them). The issue is when you introduce a scenario where the market is skewed for a particular sector of player. MLE is the example I gave - most non-minimum players in the league have their value determined by a pool of 10-12 teams each summer who have cap room. But a small subset of players, instead of being awarded the value they would typically receive from a limited cap-supply scenario, get paid more than they would typically be valued at simply because there is an artificial market created where 30 teams can offer up to the average salary or so.

Same goes for next summer. If every year from now on was going to be a 20M jump in the cap, if it was the new market, then I wouldn't disagree that the market value of the players this summer should line up with the valuation of those players. But it's not the case. Two summers down the road we'll actually see cap shrinking, and the market value for players will plummet. But even a return to typical cap growth will see the usual market valuation return, along with the correlation between player value and market value.

That said, we should not ignore the impact a screwed up temporary marketplace can have on prices. If you were to buy an overpriced shovel during the gold rush, no one would blame you. But we are in an interesting position - we know the gold rush is not going to last very long. And we know that due to the reality of player contracts, this would be more like buying a house and getting a mortgage (with a much higher than usual interest rate, locked in). We aren't paying a one time fee. We are agreeing to buy that $500 shovel 4 or 5 years in a row, even though we know the gold rush ends 2 years from now.