Let's talk about trade value

[mctyson]

Trade value is a tricky thing. 

It's tricky because we, as Celtics fans, always rate our players based on what what their value is TO THE CELTICS.

It's tricky because we never see the other side of the coin, the team we are trading with.  That's how you get the "trade for DeMarcus Cousins" threads without ever thinking about whether we have anyone Sacramento would be interested in.

It is easy for us to say that Avery Bradley has trade value, because he is our best young player on the squad.  How do we know any other team views him that way?  It is easy for us to throw Sullinger in a trade - because he has value to us as our best draft pick the past 2 seasons.  Why would we think that the 20 teams that passed him up in the draft would now reverse their position and make a trade for him?

That's why I am generally in the camp of keeping the status quo.  I think trades rarely ever work out in your team's favor.  It is easier, and more conservative, to go with what you know.  That is not to say I am opposed to trades, just that I accept they are risky and many times irreversible.

Having said that - it is clear to me that our trade value list goes something like this:

MVP - Rajon Rondo

VCCs (Veterans for Championship Contenders) - KG and PP

The 401k (things you hope have much more value in the future) - Bradley, Sullinger

Ex-Girlfriends (you can live without them but they might make you regret it) - Jeff Green, Courtney Lee

VAs (Vets for Anyone) - Jason Terry, Brandon Bass

Home Improvements - Fab Melo

Scrap Heap - Jason Collins, Leandro Barbosa, Chris Wilcox

[LooseCannon]

At this point, I think players such as Terry, Bass, and Lee mostly have value to teams with playoff hopes that suffer an injury and need a solid rotation player as a replacement.

If you wanted to trade them and come close to maximizing your return, you would wait a couple of years.  Certainly wait until the off-season, at least.

[LarBrd33]

Trade value is a tricky thing. 

It's tricky because we, as Celtics fans, always rate our players based on what what their value is TO THE CELTICS.

It's tricky because we never see the other side of the coin, the team we are trading with.  That's how you get the "trade for DeMarcus Cousins" threads without ever thinking about whether we have anyone Sacramento would be interested in.

It is easy for us to say that Avery Bradley has trade value, because he is our best young player on the squad.  How do we know any other team views him that way?  It is easy for us to throw Sullinger in a trade - because he has value to us as our best draft pick the past 2 seasons.  Why would we think that the 20 teams that passed him up in the draft would now reverse their position and make a trade for him?

That's why I am generally in the camp of keeping the status quo.  I think trades rarely ever work out in your team's favor.  It is easier, and more conservative, to go with what you know.  That is not to say I am opposed to trades, just that I accept they are risky and many times irreversible.

Having said that - it is clear to me that our trade value list goes something like this:

MVP - Rajon Rondo

VCCs (Veterans for Championship Contenders) - KG and PP

The 401k (things you hope have much more value in the future) - Bradley, Sullinger

Ex-Girlfriends (you can live without them but they might make you regret it) - Jeff Green, Courtney Lee

VAs (Vets for Anyone) - Jason Terry, Brandon Bass

Home Improvements - Fab Melo

Scrap Heap - Jason Collins, Leandro Barbosa, Chris Wilcox

Yes.  Most fans (and this goes for fans of other teams) generally only watch their own team.  They aren't spending a lot of time watching Sacramento vs Golden State.  So they think within the bubble of their team.  Rondo is the best young player here so he must be one of the best in the league.  Avery Bradley started some games here so he must be one of the best assets in the league.   You end up comparing players only within that bubble... even scrubs on our d-league team start to look appealing.  Not many try comparing the players to the players on other teams... or even previous Celtic teams.

For example... I see our current team like this:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

...


That said, If I were to go back to 2008, I'd say our team looked like this:

PG - Rondo - 3 stars
SG - Ray Allen - 4 stars (borderline 4.5)
SF - Pierce - 4 stars (borderline 4.5)
**PF - KG - 4.5 stars (borderline 5)
C - Perk - 3 stars
---
SF - Posey - 2.5 stars
SG - Allen - 2.5 stars
PF - Powe - 2 stars
PG - Sam Cassell - 2.5 stars (starting the season as a 3 star for the Clippers)
PG - House - 2 stars
PF - Davis - 2 stars
PF - PJ Brown - 2 stars

** - Historically you need at least one 4.5 or 5 star player to win a title.

First of all you'll notice that when people misconstrue our 2012 team as "one of the deepest Celtic teams of this generation" what they are really saying is that our bench features more borderline starters.  Yes, our bench now probably has more capable role players than our bench in 2008...  but if you look at the starting lineup, we clearly were better in 2008.   It's no surprise that team won 66 games and a championship.  Obviously chemistry, system and roles play a huge part of it... but you can look at that 2008 team on paper and see how it's better than the 2012 team.

[Celtics18]

Yes.  Most fans (and this goes for fans of other teams) generally only watch their own team.  They aren't spending a lot of time watching Sacramento vs Golden State.  So they think within the bubble of their team.  Rondo is the best young player here so he must be one of the best in the league.  Avery Bradley started some games here so he must be one of the best assets in the league.   You end up comparing players only within that bubble... even scrubs on our d-league team start to look appealing.  Not many try comparing the players to the players on other teams... or even previous Celtic teams.

That's insulting and untrue. 

For example, I don't think Rondo is a superstar level player simply because I've watched him play a lot.

I don't think he's one of the best players in the league because he's the best player here.  I didn't think Al Jefferson and Tony Allen were among the best players in the league when they were the best players here.

I think Rondo's one of the best players in the league because there's a lot of really strong evidence--from the eye test, to the numbers, to the awards, to the perception of coaches, analysts, and other players--to support that he is. 

Personally, I think that here in Boston, among Celtics fans specifically, is were Rondo is undervalued the most. 

[billysan]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star now), and Nash (3.5 now)

It is really simple for me. Based on either your or the OP rating scale, we upgrade the SG and/or the Center position to 3.0-3.5 (by your scale) via trade and we drastically improve the team. The starting Center slot to a 2.5 would be a nice upgrade wouldnt it?

[LarBrd33]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star now), and Nash (3.5 now)

It is really simple for me. Based on either your or the OP rating scale, we upgrade the SG and/or the Center position to 3.0-3.5 (by your scale) via trade and we drastically improve the team. The starting Center slot to a 2.5 would be a nice upgrade wouldnt it?

Yeah even when we had 40 year old Shaq here (who was what... a 2.5 or 3 by that point?) we looked dominant.  Helped to have one of the nastiest shooters alive starting at SG also.  Even when he wasn't hitting them, it spread the floor for everyone else.  Master Decoy. 

We have acquired mediocre assists to try and lure a team into trading us an upgrade... Danny absolutely will try to do this... I just don't know if anyone will want our assets.

[droopdog7]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

[LarBrd33]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

It's different, but it still works.  Melo is a 0.5 star player with the potential of 3 stars... maybe he reaches those 3 stars... maybe he doesn't.   Maybe it takes him 4 years to get there... by then he'll be 26 years old.  So you can get an idea of what his value is... he's a player who MIGHT give you 8 years as a 3 star player.     Would you rather have 4 years right now of a 3.5 star player?  Yes.  You would.  You'd have to.  For all we know Melo will never even crack a starting lineup. 

Take a guy like Pau Gasol... a 4 star player. KG has remained as a 4 star player until age 36.  Pau is 32.  So MAYBE we are looking at 4 more years of Pau playing at a 4 star level.  Would you rather have those 4 years right now... or wait around and gamble that Sullinger (a 2 right now) will reach his max potential of 3.  Well clearly you'd take Pau.  He's a 7 footer, he's better... and for the next few years it's a safe bet he'll remain more impactful.   It's a lot easier to acquire an undersized big with starter potential than it is to acquire a legit allstar 7 footer.


Yes, a lot goes into trade value.  But the first thing you have to do is establish what tier a player belongs in.  Just because Bradley is 21 doesn't mean teams look at him as a future superstar.  In our wildest dreams, Bradley peaks out as a borderline allstar.  More likely he ends up like Jason Terry... good one-dimensional undersized guard (Terry = Offense/ Bradley = defense) who spends some time on the bench on some time as a starter.   Career 2.5 star player.   That factors into his value. 

[Celtics18]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

It's different, but it still works.  Melo is a 0.5 star player with the potential of 3 stars... maybe he reaches those 3 stars... maybe he doesn't.   Maybe it takes him 4 years to get there... by then he'll be 26 years old.  So you can get an idea of what his value is... he's a player who MIGHT give you 8 years as a 3 star player.     Would you rather have 4 years right now of a 3.5 star player?  Yes.  You would.  You'd have to.  For all we know Melo will never even crack a starting lineup. 

Take a guy like Pau Gasol... a 4 star player. KG has remained as a 4 star player until age 36.  Pau is 32.  So MAYBE we are looking at 4 more years of Pau playing at a 4 star level.  Would you rather have those 4 years right now... or wait around and gamble that Sullinger (a 2 right now) will reach his max potential of 3.  Well clearly you'd take Pau.  He's a 7 footer, he's better... and for the next few years it's a safe bet he'll remain more impactful.   It's a lot easier to acquire an undersized big with starter potential than it is to acquire a legit allstar 7 footer.


Yes, a lot goes into trade value.  But the first thing you have to do is establish what tier a player belongs in.  Just because Bradley is 21 doesn't mean teams look at him as a future superstar.  In our wildest dreams, Bradley peaks out as a borderline allstar.  More likely he ends up like Jason Terry... good one-dimensional undersized guard (Terry = Offense/ Bradley = defense) who spends some time on the bench on some time as a starter.   Career 2.5 star player.   That factors into his value.

I'm sorry, but I am going to keep correcting you on this;  career averages of 16 PPG, 4.6 APG on 45% shooting and 38% shooting from three in 33 MPGs is not a career 2.5 star player.  It's more like a 3.0 or even a 3.5. 

If you want that to stick, you are going to have to do a much better job explaining how your ranking system works. 

[LarBrd33]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

It's different, but it still works.  Melo is a 0.5 star player with the potential of 3 stars... maybe he reaches those 3 stars... maybe he doesn't.   Maybe it takes him 4 years to get there... by then he'll be 26 years old.  So you can get an idea of what his value is... he's a player who MIGHT give you 8 years as a 3 star player.     Would you rather have 4 years right now of a 3.5 star player?  Yes.  You would.  You'd have to.  For all we know Melo will never even crack a starting lineup. 

Take a guy like Pau Gasol... a 4 star player. KG has remained as a 4 star player until age 36.  Pau is 32.  So MAYBE we are looking at 4 more years of Pau playing at a 4 star level.  Would you rather have those 4 years right now... or wait around and gamble that Sullinger (a 2 right now) will reach his max potential of 3.  Well clearly you'd take Pau.  He's a 7 footer, he's better... and for the next few years it's a safe bet he'll remain more impactful.   It's a lot easier to acquire an undersized big with starter potential than it is to acquire a legit allstar 7 footer.


Yes, a lot goes into trade value.  But the first thing you have to do is establish what tier a player belongs in.  Just because Bradley is 21 doesn't mean teams look at him as a future superstar.  In our wildest dreams, Bradley peaks out as a borderline allstar.  More likely he ends up like Jason Terry... good one-dimensional undersized guard (Terry = Offense/ Bradley = defense) who spends some time on the bench on some time as a starter.   Career 2.5 star player.   That factors into his value.

I'm sorry, but I am going to keep correcting you on this;  career averages of 16 PPG, 4.6 APG on 45% shooting and 38% shooting from three in 33 MPGs is not a career 2.5 star player.  It's more like a 3.0 or even a 3.5. 

If you want that to stick, you are going to have to do a much better job explaining how your ranking system works.

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench

Your 6th man isn't a starter.  He's a 2.5.

... He's been coming off the bench for the past 6 years.  He hasn't been a starter since 2007.  He's primarily been a role player off the bench.  Every once in a while he's started, but when he's started it was because teams were willing to take the good (scoring) with the bad (everything else).   Kinda like how Bass started for us by default, but is really a rotation player.  Especially now that Terry is 35 years old.   I've downgraded Terry to a "2" because of your persistence.

[Celtics18]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

It's different, but it still works.  Melo is a 0.5 star player with the potential of 3 stars... maybe he reaches those 3 stars... maybe he doesn't.   Maybe it takes him 4 years to get there... by then he'll be 26 years old.  So you can get an idea of what his value is... he's a player who MIGHT give you 8 years as a 3 star player.     Would you rather have 4 years right now of a 3.5 star player?  Yes.  You would.  You'd have to.  For all we know Melo will never even crack a starting lineup. 

Take a guy like Pau Gasol... a 4 star player. KG has remained as a 4 star player until age 36.  Pau is 32.  So MAYBE we are looking at 4 more years of Pau playing at a 4 star level.  Would you rather have those 4 years right now... or wait around and gamble that Sullinger (a 2 right now) will reach his max potential of 3.  Well clearly you'd take Pau.  He's a 7 footer, he's better... and for the next few years it's a safe bet he'll remain more impactful.   It's a lot easier to acquire an undersized big with starter potential than it is to acquire a legit allstar 7 footer.


Yes, a lot goes into trade value.  But the first thing you have to do is establish what tier a player belongs in.  Just because Bradley is 21 doesn't mean teams look at him as a future superstar.  In our wildest dreams, Bradley peaks out as a borderline allstar.  More likely he ends up like Jason Terry... good one-dimensional undersized guard (Terry = Offense/ Bradley = defense) who spends some time on the bench on some time as a starter.   Career 2.5 star player.   That factors into his value.

I'm sorry, but I am going to keep correcting you on this;  career averages of 16 PPG, 4.6 APG on 45% shooting and 38% shooting from three in 33 MPGs is not a career 2.5 star player.  It's more like a 3.0 or even a 3.5. 

If you want that to stick, you are going to have to do a much better job explaining how your ranking system works.

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench

Your 6th man isn't a starter.  He's a 2.5.

... He's been coming off the bench for the past 6 years.  He hasn't been a starter since 2007.  He's primarily been a role player off the bench.  Every once in a while he's started, but when he's started it was because teams were willing to take the good (scoring) with the bad (everything else).   Kinda like how Bass started for us by default, but is really a rotation player.  Especially now that Terry is 35 years old.   I've downgraded Terry to a "2" because of your persistence.

I guess Manu Ginobili is a "career 2.5", as well.  I agree that JET's not playing like a 3.0 or better this season, but your obstinate refusal to look at his career numbers is befuddling. 

Again;  He's averaged 33 minutes per game over his career, and he's averaged 16 PPG, and 4.5 APG over those minutes.  It doesn't matter whether he started those games or came off the bench.  Those are obviously starter's minutes and production, and top level starters minutes and production, at that. 

I'm glad you've downgraded him to a 2 because of my persistence.  It shows how objective your rating system really is. 

[LarBrd33]

I said this in another thread...

I like the idea behind this scale, but it feels backwards to me.  I play a lot of video games.  a 1-5 star scale makes the most sense.  The better you are, the more stars you are.

For instance:

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench


Rarely do players reach 5 stars.  We're talking LeBron, Durant... maybe Dwight and Chris Paul at their peaks.  Like in video games, players have a current level and a "potential" level.  Like if we were to look at DeMarcus Cousins... his current level is 3.5 stars... with a perceived potential of 4.5 stars.  He might never reach that potential though.

Our roster, imo:

KG in his prime was a 5... now he's a 4.
Pierce in his absolute prime may have been a 4.5, but it was short lived... he's been a 4 for most of his career and is inching towards 3.5.
Ray in his absolute prime was a 4.5... now he's a 2.5
Rondo is a 4.  His stats often suggest otherwise, but he's a 4.
Terry is life long 2.5
Bass is a 2 ->  2.5
Sully is a 2 right now with a potential anywhere between 2.5 and 3.
Lee is a 2.5
Barbosa is a 2 -> 2.5
Bradley is a 2.5 right now with a max potential of a 3.5.  THough some here see him as having 4 potential.  A few more see him as having 4.5 potential, but that's just homers being homers.
Fab Melo is a 0.5 right now probably with a max potential of 3 (Perkins was about the same).
Jeff Green is a 3 with 3.5 potential


...

In other words:

PG - Rondo - 4 stars
SG - Lee - 2.5 stars
SF - Pierce - 4 stars
PF - KG - 4 stars
C - Collins - 1 star
----
SF - Green - 3 stars
PF - Bass - 2.5 stars
SG - Terry - 2.5 stars
SG - Bradley - 2.5 stars
SG - Barbosa - 2.5 stars
PF - Sullinger - 2 stars

... Hence why I've been saying this roster "made no sense" since prior to the season starting and hence why our current struggles aren't surprising at all to me.

It's why you'd give up pretty much anything outside of Rondo to get a young 3.5 Center with 4.5 star potential.... and why it's highly unlikely our talent is valuable enough to land one. 

Even landing Al Jefferson (3.5) or Josh Smith (3.5) would be an upgrade. 

Still... hard to compete with a team like Miami that has a 5 star, 4.5 star and 4 star player.  And it's why you can't count out the Lakers to get it together with Kobe (4.5), Dwight (5 star when healthy), Pau (4 star when healthy), and Nash (3.5 now)

The reason why draft picks (especially lotto picks) are so valuable is that you're basically rolling the dice that you're going to land a 4.5.  It's the easiest and cheapest method of doing so.  The higher the pick, the better your odds of landing a 4.5.  Sure, you're still more likely to land a 2, but it's a chance.  Would teams give up a chance at landing a 4.5 in order to take back a 2.5 with max 3.5 potential?... probably not since their worse case scenario with the lotto pick is probably landing a 2.5 (if they know what they are doing).  So generally you probably give a top 5 pick a value of 3.5.. a lotto pick a value of 3.  Maybe higher, right?  It's why I keep asking whether anyone would actually part with a lotto pick for Avery Bradley (2.5 value currently ... possible 3.5 value if he defies the size odds and EVERYTHING goes as planned).  Most teams probably keep the lotto pick (3 star value currrently... small chance of it becoming a 4.5... as opposed to zero chance of Bradley becoming a 4.5)

This system is much different from the purpose of this thread, which is trade value.  It does not take into account potential, age, and salary, all of which impact trade value.  Hence, n the eyes of some melo might have more value than someone like bass or lee even though he is not even an nba player right now.  So pretty much were talking apples and organizes with our systems.

It's different, but it still works.  Melo is a 0.5 star player with the potential of 3 stars... maybe he reaches those 3 stars... maybe he doesn't.   Maybe it takes him 4 years to get there... by then he'll be 26 years old.  So you can get an idea of what his value is... he's a player who MIGHT give you 8 years as a 3 star player.     Would you rather have 4 years right now of a 3.5 star player?  Yes.  You would.  You'd have to.  For all we know Melo will never even crack a starting lineup. 

Take a guy like Pau Gasol... a 4 star player. KG has remained as a 4 star player until age 36.  Pau is 32.  So MAYBE we are looking at 4 more years of Pau playing at a 4 star level.  Would you rather have those 4 years right now... or wait around and gamble that Sullinger (a 2 right now) will reach his max potential of 3.  Well clearly you'd take Pau.  He's a 7 footer, he's better... and for the next few years it's a safe bet he'll remain more impactful.   It's a lot easier to acquire an undersized big with starter potential than it is to acquire a legit allstar 7 footer.


Yes, a lot goes into trade value.  But the first thing you have to do is establish what tier a player belongs in.  Just because Bradley is 21 doesn't mean teams look at him as a future superstar.  In our wildest dreams, Bradley peaks out as a borderline allstar.  More likely he ends up like Jason Terry... good one-dimensional undersized guard (Terry = Offense/ Bradley = defense) who spends some time on the bench on some time as a starter.   Career 2.5 star player.   That factors into his value.

I'm sorry, but I am going to keep correcting you on this;  career averages of 16 PPG, 4.6 APG on 45% shooting and 38% shooting from three in 33 MPGs is not a career 2.5 star player.  It's more like a 3.0 or even a 3.5. 

If you want that to stick, you are going to have to do a much better job explaining how your ranking system works.

5 stars: Superstar
4 stars: All-Star
3 stars: Starter
2 stars: Rotation Player
1 star: End of the Bench

Your 6th man isn't a starter.  He's a 2.5.

... He's been coming off the bench for the past 6 years.  He hasn't been a starter since 2007.  He's primarily been a role player off the bench.  Every once in a while he's started, but when he's started it was because teams were willing to take the good (scoring) with the bad (everything else).   Kinda like how Bass started for us by default, but is really a rotation player.  Especially now that Terry is 35 years old.   I've downgraded Terry to a "2" because of your persistence.

I guess Manu Ginobili is a "career 2.5", as well.  I agree that JET's not playing like a 3.0 or better this season, but your obstinate refusal to look at his career numbers is befuddling. 

Again;  He's averaged 33 minutes per game over his career, and he's averaged 16 PPG, and 4.5 APG over those minutes.  It doesn't matter whether he started those games or came off the bench.  Those are obviously starter's minutes and production, and top level starters minutes and production, at that. 

I'm glad you've downgraded him to a 2 because of my persistence.  It shows how objective your rating system really is.

Now Jet is a 1.5 ... I hope you're happy with yourself. 

[Mr October]

The Celtics have no superstars.

Rondo and KG are 4
Pierce is 3.5
Bradley is 3
Green is 2.5 and overpaid
Terry, Bass, Lee, Wilcox, Barbosa are 2
Sullinger 1.5
Collins 1

The only trade chips are Rondo, KG, Bradley and Pierce in that order.
The other players could only get a quality big man in return, if that big man had a bad contract.

[Roy H.]

The Celtics have no superstars.

Rondo and KG are 4
Pierce is 3.5
Bradley is 3
Green is 2.5 and overpaid
Terry, Bass, Lee, Wilcox, Barbosa are 2
Sullinger 1.5
Collins 1

The only trade chips are Rondo, KG, Bradley and Pierce in that order.
The other players could only get a quality big man in return, if that big man had a bad contract.

Not a big fan of Sully?

[Mr October]

The Celtics have no superstars.

Rondo and KG are 4
Pierce is 3.5
Bradley is 3
Green is 2.5 and overpaid
Terry, Bass, Lee, Wilcox, Barbosa are 2
Sullinger 1.5
Collins 1

The only trade chips are Rondo, KG, Bradley and Pierce in that order.
The other players could only get a quality big man in return, if that big man had a bad contract.

Not a big fan of Sully?

He does a lot of good things, but he is automatically at a disadvantage due to his lack of height, strength, speed, and hops. What he gives and takes appears to be a wash on any given night at best. He's a nice 10th man, good enough to play 12 minutes per night. I would expect him to evolve into a 2.0 player by the end of the season, or certainly by the start of next season. I'm not convinced he'll ever be a solid starter (a top 20 PF).