Let's talk about trade value

[hpantazo]

Trading up really has more to do with the seller than the buyer.  It's just hard to find a team willing to part with a star.

Looking at past trades, high picks, star-potential prospects, other picks, and then expiring salary fodder are what it takes in some combination, but you have to find a seller.

I like the Bradley/Sully/Pick package that Danny is able to put together, but there are no expiring contracts to match.  That's a disadvantage.

So I think the highest values are Rondo's (as a current star), then the young guys in Bradley/Sully, then that's pretty much about it.

Assuming keeping Rondo, a trade that involves both Bradley and Sully should be a pretty big one, since we would be shooting our wad in a trade that sent both of them.

I don't really think role players on mid-level long-term deals have any positive value at all, so we're stuck with Lee, Terry, and Bass unless a team will take them as matching salary (along with picks, Bradley and Sully).

And I don't think Pierce or KG get traded.  I just don't.

The thing is, if we are trading for Cousins, we don't need an expiring contract as his salary is low. It's an unusual situation, but in this case Bradley, Sullinger, Melo, pick would get it done. Normally you don't see players with all-star talent on a rookie deal being traded, but Cousins is far from normal.

[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)

[CelticsFan9]

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)

LarBrd33, I can see you're a 2K fan!  Great analysis!  TP

The key to this kind of system when trading is not just matching up stars, but being able to project each players' future.

For example, using your system, Bradley and Collins for Cousins would work in terms of stars; however, Bradley will probably top off as a 3.5-4 and Collins will always be a 1, while Cousins, as you said, has the potential to be a 4.5.  This is the toughest part of trades: being able to get talent of equal value, now and in the future.

As for trades I'd like to see, we need a guy who's probably just a 3.  He needs to be BIG, must be good defensively, and sound offensively.  It's very tough to find a guy like that.  All this talk of Josh Smith, Marcin Gortat, and Cousins is crazy to me.  Just a thought: all three of those guys have complained about touches at some point in their career.  We don't need that kind of player, because Rondo, Pierce, Garnett, and Terry take up most of the offensive load already.  We don't need another guy who needs the ball on offense to be effective.

I like to compare this to Detroit in the late 80's when they traded Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre.  Dantley was clearly more talented, but Zeke knew he was becoming selfish, and they weren't going to win a championship if Dantley wasn't moved.  So they downgraded for Aguirre.  A good defender (keeping their defensive identity) and a guy who could produce offensively, but didn't need the basketball like Dantley did.  In the end, Detroit won, and you can point to that trade as a big reason for it.

I'm not saying we need to trade one of our best offensive players for an Aguirre-like player, I'm saying we don't need a Smith or a Gortat or a Cousins.  We just need a complementary big who defends well.  Maybe that's Varejao, maybe it's someone else, I don't know.  I think whoever that big, plus Bradley's return, can hopefully put us right back in the mix for the title.

[Celtics18]

Man, when you guys put arbitrarily made up numbers next to players' names, it makes everything seem so factual and indisputable.  I'll have to start doing that more when posting around here. 

[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)

LarBrd33, I can see you're a 2K fan!  Great analysis!  TP

The key to this kind of system when trading is not just matching up stars, but being able to project each players' future.

For example, using your system, Bradley and Collins for Cousins would work in terms of stars; however, Bradley will probably top off as a 3.5-4 and Collins will always be a 1, while Cousins, as you said, has the potential to be a 4.5.  This is the toughest part of trades: being able to get talent of equal value, now and in the future.

As for trades I'd like to see, we need a guy who's probably just a 3.  He needs to be BIG, must be good defensively, and sound offensively.  It's very tough to find a guy like that.  All this talk of Josh Smith, Marcin Gortat, and Cousins is crazy to me.  Just a thought: all three of those guys have complained about touches at some point in their career.  We don't need that kind of player, because Rondo, Pierce, Garnett, and Terry take up most of the offensive load already.  We don't need another guy who needs the ball on offense to be effective.

I like to compare this to Detroit in the late 90's when they traded Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre.  Dantley was clearly more talented, but Zeke knew he was becoming selfish, and they weren't going to win a championship if Dantley wasn't moved.  So they downgraded for Aguirre.  A good defender (keeping their defensive identity) and a guy who could produce offensively, but didn't need the basketball like Dantley did.  In the end, Detroit won, and you can point to that trade as a big reason for it.

I'm not saying we need to trade one of our best offensive players for an Aguirre-like player, I'm saying we don't need a Smith or a Gortat or a Cousins.  We just need a complementary big who defends well.  Maybe that's Varejao, maybe it's someone else, I don't know.  I think whoever that big, plus Bradley's return, can hopefully put us right back in the mix for the title.

Yeah you obviously don't just add up stars... otherwise you could trade 5 Jason Collins for one LeBron James.  Usually you need multiple players in one tier to move up to the next tier.  Now, obviously... real life isn't video games.  There's also contracts, trade demands, salary cap, age, rebuilding efforts, attitudes, impending free agency, perceived potential, missing pieces to a championship, etc to consider. 

You could say, "Well Bradley is a 2.5 with 3 star potential.  Sully is a 2 star with 3 star potential.   Jeff Green is a 3 star.  Those 3 should be enough to land one measely 3.5 star player like Josh Smith, right?"

No... not necessarily.  Teams aren't usually willing to dump their higher tier players for a collection of lesser players.  The lesser players are easier to acquire than the higher tier players.  2 star players grow on trees in this league.

BTW:  I don't actually play 2k very often.  I recommend "Draft Day Sports Pro Basketball 3", though.  Great series if you want to pretend to be a GM.  A bit more realistic. Less stupid trades.  More depth.  Still easy to manipulate the system into becoming a dynasty, though:  http://www.wolverinestudios.com/ddspb3.html 

[LarBrd33]

Man, when you guys put arbitrarily made up numbers next to players' names, it makes everything seem so factual and indisputable.  I'll have to start doing that more when posting around here.

I'm pretty positive NBA teams actually do this.  Generally they organize players into tiers.  The tiers are based on scouting, various statistics, observations, etc... but it does indeed happen.  Teams might disagree with one another... but they definitely have an idea of where each player fits within a "tier system".   You usually don't dump a guy in the allstar tier for a few players in the benchwarmer tier.

[CelticsFan9]

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)

LarBrd33, I can see you're a 2K fan!  Great analysis!  TP

The key to this kind of system when trading is not just matching up stars, but being able to project each players' future.

For example, using your system, Bradley and Collins for Cousins would work in terms of stars; however, Bradley will probably top off as a 3.5-4 and Collins will always be a 1, while Cousins, as you said, has the potential to be a 4.5.  This is the toughest part of trades: being able to get talent of equal value, now and in the future.

As for trades I'd like to see, we need a guy who's probably just a 3.  He needs to be BIG, must be good defensively, and sound offensively.  It's very tough to find a guy like that.  All this talk of Josh Smith, Marcin Gortat, and Cousins is crazy to me.  Just a thought: all three of those guys have complained about touches at some point in their career.  We don't need that kind of player, because Rondo, Pierce, Garnett, and Terry take up most of the offensive load already.  We don't need another guy who needs the ball on offense to be effective.

I like to compare this to Detroit in the late 90's when they traded Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre.  Dantley was clearly more talented, but Zeke knew he was becoming selfish, and they weren't going to win a championship if Dantley wasn't moved.  So they downgraded for Aguirre.  A good defender (keeping their defensive identity) and a guy who could produce offensively, but didn't need the basketball like Dantley did.  In the end, Detroit won, and you can point to that trade as a big reason for it.

I'm not saying we need to trade one of our best offensive players for an Aguirre-like player, I'm saying we don't need a Smith or a Gortat or a Cousins.  We just need a complementary big who defends well.  Maybe that's Varejao, maybe it's someone else, I don't know.  I think whoever that big, plus Bradley's return, can hopefully put us right back in the mix for the title.

Yeah you obviously don't just add up stars... otherwise you could trade 5 Jason Collins for one LeBron James.  Usually you need multiple players in one tier to move up to the next tier.  Now, obviously... real life isn't video games.  There's also contracts, trade demands, age, attitudes, impending free agency, perceived potential, etc to consider. 

You could say, "Well Bradley is a 2.5 with 3 star potential.  Sully is a 2 star with 3 star potential.   Jeff Green is a 3 star.  Those 3 should be enough to land one measely 3.5 star player like Josh Smith, right?"

No... not necessarily.  Teams aren't usually willing to dump their higher tier players for a collection of lesser players.  The lesser players are easier to acquire than the higher tier players.  2 star players grow on trees in this league.

BTW:  I don't actually play 2k very often.  I recommend "Draft Day Sports Pro Basketball 3", though.  Great series if you want to pretend to be a GM.  A bit more realistic. Less stupid trades.  More depth.  Still easy to manipulate the system into becoming a dynasty, though:  http://www.wolverinestudios.com/ddspb3.html

Another good point.  Matching up money is very difficult for GMs I'm sure, as some player's contracts don't match up with their actual talent and value (ahem Jeff Green ahem).

And I agree that it's much easier to get those lesser players than a starter/star/potential all star.

Something else you have to factor in is what team you're trading with.  For example, Charlotte's best player RIGHT NOW is probably Kemba Walker (maybe MKG).  Now, Walker is probably a 3, but if you wanted to trade for him, it going to take a lot more than you'd think because the Bobcats value him much more.

[CelticsFan9]

Man, when you guys put arbitrarily made up numbers next to players' names, it makes everything seem so factual and indisputable.  I'll have to start doing that more when posting around here.

It might not be factual, but I think it helps to discern players from one another when it comes to trading.

[Who]

Now, Walker is probably a 3, but if you wanted to trade for him, it going to take a lot more than you'd think because the Bobcats value him much more.

Nothing to do with your point ... just as an aside:

I think Kemba Walker should be a 2 (rotation player). I am still not convinced Kemba is anything more than a chance of pace guard off the bench.

[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)

Rondo's a 4.5.

Jason Terry is not a career 2.5.  He's a career 3.0 to 3.5. 

[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)

Rondo's a 4.5.

Jason Terry is not a career 2.5.  He's a career 3.0 to 3.5.

Totally disagree.  I think Rondo is a 4.  Players like Dirk at his peak are 4.5... Guys you could build a team around and be a contender with, but not the "superstar" level of LeBron, Durant, Jordan, Bird, Magic...  I think Pierce may have briefly glimpsed 4.5, but ultimately has been a 4 for his entire career.  Rondo is a top 20 player... he's a 4.

Jason Terry is a career 2.5.  He's started for some teams by default, but usually been utilized as a 6th man because of his size.  Since 2 is rotation player and 3 is starter... clearly Jason Terry is a 2.5... somewhere between starter and bench player.   Not sure how you can disagree with that one.   

[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)

Rondo's a 4.5.

Jason Terry is not a career 2.5.  He's a career 3.0 to 3.5.

Totally disagree.  I think Rondo is a 4.  Players like Dirk at his peak are 4.5... Guys you could build a team around and be a contender with, but not the "superstar" level of LeBron, Durant, Jordan, Bird, Magic...  I think Pierce may have briefly glimpsed 4.5, but ultimately has been a 4 for his entire career.  Rondo is a top 20 player... he's a 4.

Jason Terry is a career 2.5.  He's started for some teams by default, but usually been utilized as a 6th man because of his size.  Since 2 is rotation player and 3 is starter... clearly Jason Terry is a 2.5... somewhere between starter and bench player.   Not sure how you can disagree with that one.   

If there are at least ten 4.5s in the league, Rondo's one of them.  Being about to get voted to his first all star game as a starter, and coming off a season where he finished eighth in
MVP voting are just a couple of things on his resume that support him being a 4.5.  His consistent playoff excellence is another.  His efficiency rating, which has been in the top ten for most of the season, but recently dipped below, is yet another.

Yeah, Rondo's a 4.5.

As to JET:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/terryja01.html

Yes, he's come off the bench most of his career, but he's played high level starters minutes throughout and put up high level starters numbers. 

He's clearly been a solid starter to above average starter level player for the bulk of his exceptional career. 

[ssspence]

Trade value is a tricky thing.  Who ever would have thought that Orlando would have traded Dwight Howard for Arron Afflalo, Nikola Vucevic, Moe Harkless, and a handful of draft picks.

Who would have thought that Marc Gasol would be the primary return in a trade for Pau Gasol?

I agree that the chances of the Celts landing an impact all-star are small.  However, never underestimate the stupidity / desperation of an NBA GM.

Agreed -- for role players and prospects in particular, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Guys like Fab Melo or Jason Terry are worth far more to some GMs than others. Depends on situation, roster, risk portfolio, cap, opinion on style of player, and of course, competence of GM / Owner....

[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)

Rondo's a 4.5.

Jason Terry is not a career 2.5.  He's a career 3.0 to 3.5.

Totally disagree.  I think Rondo is a 4.  Players like Dirk at his peak are 4.5... Guys you could build a team around and be a contender with, but not the "superstar" level of LeBron, Durant, Jordan, Bird, Magic...  I think Pierce may have briefly glimpsed 4.5, but ultimately has been a 4 for his entire career.  Rondo is a top 20 player... he's a 4.

Jason Terry is a career 2.5.  He's started for some teams by default, but usually been utilized as a 6th man because of his size.  Since 2 is rotation player and 3 is starter... clearly Jason Terry is a 2.5... somewhere between starter and bench player.   Not sure how you can disagree with that one.   

If there are at least ten 4.5s in the league, Rondo's one of them.  Being about to get voted to his first all star game as a starter, and coming off a season where he finished eighth in
MVP voting are just a couple of things on his resume that support him being a 4.5.  His consistent playoff excellence is another.  His efficiency rating, which has been in the top ten for most of the season, but recently dipped below, is yet another.

Yeah, Rondo's a 4.5.

As to JET:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/terryja01.html

Yes, he's come off the bench most of his career, but he's played high level starters minutes throughout and put up high level starters numbers. 

He's clearly been a solid starter to above average starter level player for the bulk of his exceptional career.

Well there you go... you almost just proved my point.  Rondo is a 3 time allstar.  He made 3rd team All-NBA once in his career.  That's a player who is 4 stars.   4.5 would be anyone who makes 1st team or maybe 2nd team All-NBA.  Rondo has never done that.  He's 27... maybe he peaks out this year... we'll see.   But at the moment he's nothing more than an all-star.  Not a borderline superstar... definitely not a superstar.

4.5 would be Kevin Garnett in 2008 (after spending most of his career as a 5) ... Someone you can build a contender around.

It's true that Jet has started about 60% of the games of his career.  So then.. I still feel comfortable labeling him at 2.5 stars.  That's someone who has spent a large chunk of his career as a bench player, but also has spent some time starting.  Hence... between 2 and 3 stars.   Especially at this point where he's 35 years old.  He's spent the previous 5 years coming off the bench. I'm being generous not calling him 2 stars.

[LarBrd33]

Man, when you guys put arbitrarily made up numbers next to players' names, it makes everything seem so factual and indisputable.  I'll have to start doing that more when posting around here.

It might not be factual, but I think it helps to discern players from one another when it comes to trading.

It's not perfect, but organizing players into tiers is probably how most GM's operate.  When people talk about "acquiring assets", this is what they are talking about.  Clearly Danny Ainge adheres to that mentality...

Take for instance trading for Ricky Davis.  Davis was a 3.5 at the time.  Starter who was flirting with allstar stats.  He was also a grade-A headcase, but it was a cheap way of acquiring a 3.5 star talent as an asset.  The long-term hope being that you can flip him down the line for someone less of a headcase who fits the vision more.   

Al Jefferson in 2007 was a 3 star player who looked like he had max potential of 4.5 stars.  He peaked out at 3.5.

Gerald Green in 2007 was a 2 star player who many felt had 4 star potential.  He peaked out at 2 stars.

Those were assets.  We also gave up two first rounders (again... 1st rounders are valuable, because of the tiny chance of it turning into a 4.5 star player)

All of those assets combined landed us a 5 star player (KG) who was on the decline... probably already a 4.5 star player by 2008.

With Ray we were trading for a 4 star player well into his 30s.  We gave up a top 5 pick (which I figure is valued at 3.5 stars, but the potential of it being a 4.5 or even in some RARE instances a 5 star)

Assets... it's about assets.  It's why after losing Ray (well on the decline... we saw him fall from 4 stars to 2.5 stars), we scrambled and signed three different backup shooting guards who were 2.5 stars (Jet, Lee and Barbosa).  they were available... so we snatched them up.  The hope being that we can combine those assets with young players to lure a capable starter (3 stars) or borderline allstar (3.5 star) big man. 

Being an NBA GM is no place for sentimental people.  The successful ones are cold-hearted folks who can slap a value number on the players and move them around like buying and selling stocks.