Number of Kyler tweets on Cs, Bender, Sixers Trade

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I worry about Danny when he falls in love with American athletes who seem to be "undervalued" because of little things like not having a jumpshot, not having a true position, or having attitude / BBIQ issues.

I hate when he drafts defense first guards!

Don't you mean "combo guards" who happen to not shoot all that well? 

[LarBrd33]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

Well it doesnt make sense if you believe 1 report as gospel and base the other's truth value off of it.

It's the difference between a report and an opinion.

It was reported by Steve Bulpett we offered the Brooklyn pick in a package for Okafor and Philly turned is down.

This is someone on twitter saying he believes Boston would want more than just Okafor for #3 - while subsequently saying at the same time that Okafor would go 2nd or 3rd in this draft.

You might consider it a small difference, but it's a difference.  In scenario 1, Ainge himself said he offered a large package for a "a player", that the deal was close, that the other team decided they didn't want to do it last minute - and that they might revisit it again in the Summer.  It was later reported that Ainge was referring to Okafor.  Every major publication has since relayed this report.

On the flip side, you have someone on twitter saying that Boston would not move #3 for just Okafor.   If on draft night someone reports that Philly offered Okafor for #3 and Boston turned them down, that's a story.

[alldaboston]

I worry about Danny when he falls in love with American athletes who seem to be "undervalued" because of little things like not having a jumpshot, not having a true position, or having attitude / BBIQ issues.

Same. At the end of the day, you need to be talented to play basketball. These athlete with grit and heart won't win you a championship. Talent will win you a championship.

[alldaboston]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

Well it doesnt make sense if you believe 1 report as gospel and base the other's truth value off of it.

It's the difference between a report and an opinion.

It was reported by Steve Bulpett we offered the Brooklyn pick in a package for Okafor and Philly turned is down.

This is someone on twitter saying he believes Boston would want more than just Okafor for #3 - while subsequently saying at the same time that Okafor would go 2nd or 3rd in this draft.

I'm sure he's doing more than just reporting it. He likely has heard stuff regarding the deal.

Just because you have never heard of the guy doesn't mean he's just "someone on Twitter", and you're essentially implying he's a fraud. He's not a fraud. He's a legit reporter who has sources in the NBA. And he's using his sources to report information he's gotten from sources. It's not an opinion.

[hpantazo]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

Well it doesnt make sense if you believe 1 report as gospel and base the other's truth value off of it.

It's the difference between a report and an opinion.

It was reported by Steve Bulpett we offered the Brooklyn pick in a package for Okafor and Philly turned is down.

This is someone on twitter saying he believes Boston would want more than just Okafor for #3 - while subsequently saying at the same time that Okafor would go 2nd or 3rd in this draft.

You might consider it a small difference, but it's a difference.  In scenario 1, Ainge himself said he offered a large package for a "a player", that the deal was close, that the other team decided they didn't want to do it last minute - and that they might revisit it again in the Summer. It was later reported that Ainge was referring to Okafor.  Every major publication has since relayed this report.

On the flip side, you have someone on twitter saying that Boston would not move #3 for just Okafor.   If on draft night someone reports that Philly offered Okafor for #3 and Boston turned them down, that's a story.

That deal Ainge referred to was for Butler, not Okafor. Reports of it came out much later, the media initially screwed up imo. There is no reason to offer "a large package" for Okafor. That would be a huge overpay. There is for Butler however, that is his price range.

[Evantime34]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

You don't think Okafor's value in the market took a hit when they changed management? When it becomes common knowledge that the Sixers are moving one of Noel or Okafor, Philly loses leverage and probably won't get as much.

The injury and the off the court stuff couldn't have helped his value either.

[wiley]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

Well it doesnt make sense if you believe 1 report as gospel and base the other's truth value off of it.

It's the difference between a report and an opinion.

It was reported by Steve Bulpett we offered the Brooklyn pick in a package for Okafor and Philly turned is down.

This is someone on twitter saying he believes Boston would want more than just Okafor for #3 - while subsequently saying at the same time that Okafor would go 2nd or 3rd in this draft.

You might consider it a small difference, but it's a difference.  In scenario 1, Ainge himself said he offered a large package for a "a player", that the deal was close, that the other team decided they didn't want to do it last minute - and that they might revisit it again in the Summer. It was later reported that Ainge was referring to Okafor.  Every major publication has since relayed this report.

On the flip side, you have someone on twitter saying that Boston would not move #3 for just Okafor.   If on draft night someone reports that Philly offered Okafor for #3 and Boston turned them down, that's a story.

That deal Ainge referred to was for Butler, not Okafor. Reports of it came out much later, the media initially screwed up imo. There is no reason to offer "a large package" for Okafor. That would be a huge overpay. There is for Butler however, that is his price range.

Yup.  But your'e telling the wrong guy..   

[wiley]

I didn't like this:

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board... they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

Not a fan of either one.

So is Kyler suggesting that both Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss are individually "a lot more" valuable than Jahlil Okafor? 

Fascinating.

A bird in the hand.... Okafor is certainly safer, but I don't think it's hard to imagine how Chriss could be the more dominant NBA player.

I agree with your previous post about posturing. I don't think Philly can command more than #3 for Okafor in their current position, and they indeed might have to throw in Covington to make the move. But it's not like anything should be taken as real between now and the draft.... it's all calculated bull**** being managed and "leaked" by the teams with a desired result until the last minute.

Back in February we reported offered a package built around the Brooklyn pick for Okafor and Philly turned us down.   This was when the pick still had the potential to land top 2.

Just a few months later with the pick locked out of the top 2, if this guy's opinion is accurate, we not only wouldn't trade #3 for Okafor, but we'd want more? 

Yeah, ok.

Well it doesnt make sense if you believe 1 report as gospel and base the other's truth value off of it.

It's the difference between a report and an opinion.

It was reported by Steve Bulpett we offered the Brooklyn pick in a package for Okafor and Philly turned is down.

This is someone on twitter saying he believes Boston would want more than just Okafor for #3 - while subsequently saying at the same time that Okafor would go 2nd or 3rd in this draft.

You might consider it a small difference, but it's a difference.  In scenario 1, Ainge himself said he offered a large package for a "a player", that the deal was close, that the other team decided they didn't want to do it last minute - and that they might revisit it again in the Summer.  It was later reported that Ainge was referring to Okafor.  Every major publication has since relayed this report.

On the flip side, you have someone on twitter saying that Boston would not move #3 for just Okafor.   If on draft night someone reports that Philly offered Okafor for #3 and Boston turned them down, that's a story.

Get some subtlety man.  The reason Okafor might go #2 in this draft is that if he were in this draft he'd be a fresh, untainted offense oriented big man that you'd hate to screw up on by passing on him.
Now he's worth less than what he'd have been worth in this draft.  How do you think Bender got to be the consensus pick at #3 for so long?

[wiley]

Two things seem to be emerging:

1. Bender stock is falling, at least for now.
2. 3 pick is an over-pay for Okafor, and Philly will have to add juice to make trade work.

3.  Philly is not in the driver's seat on the Noel/Okafor front. 

It's not about the value.  We all agree that the #3 for Okafor would be a pretty fair trade.  It's that Philly (because of Hinkie) are in this pinch with 4 high-draft pick PF/Cs on the roster and the #1 pick in a draft where the top-2 talents are basically PFs.

When the other team has to trade...you are in power.

This is actually incorrect.  What matters not is how many PF/C types Philly has and thus needs to trade, what matters is how many teams want young PF/C's, and how many are available.

If, for example, 10 teams want such a player, and there are only 5 surplus PF/C on the trade market or in free agency, then Philly is in the drivers seat, because they control the market, and demand is greater than supply.  If, on the other hand, there are 10 such surplus PF/C available, and only 5 teams looking for them, then Philly will be in trouble.

(I'm using the term "surplus", because while Philly might trade any of their 5 such players, they'd only trade 3 at the very most.  So while 5 could be on the market, only 3, or maybe just 1 or 2, would be moved.  Again, this is a hypothetical, but I'm just trying to explain market power.)

I'm not sure it works this way.  There would have to be an incredibly low number quality big men available in the league for Philly to gain an advantage by having a surplus, because the surplus on their roster (which is an imbalance) would take precedence.  If the league was so lacking in big men Philly would just hold onto all three for now and wait (hope)for them to establish real value, and then they'd have an advantage just by being such a talented team and being deep.  As it is, they are worried about poor fit and lack of development via overcrowding. 

What I think is more important in this case is which team they're dealing with.  If they're dealing with the Celtics the Celts are in a position of strength.  1.  There are like 42 available centers in this draft to develop.  2.  They have the assets to trade for a vet center.  3.  they could sign a decent center (btw is Tyson Chanlder healthy and available).    Not only that, but the Celtics would be doing the Sixers an enormous favor by allowing them to end their logjam by adding Dunn.  Huge Huge favor.  I hope Danny won't do that...make Philly a work a bit harder to get their leader for of the next 10 years. 

Other teams in less good shape than the C's might  tend to overpay (gamble) on a Sixer Center being a big time cornerstone piece.  But only if they allow Philly to be the stronger party. 

[Beat LA]

====

Bender does nothing for Celtics for 3 years though.

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board...they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

===

Oh dear lord . *facepalm*

[chambers]

====

Bender does nothing for Celtics for 3 years though.

Kyler: Bender not the top guy on Boston's board...they are very high on Jaylen Brown and Marquese Chriss

===

Oh dear lord . *facepalm*

Could just be force fed to Brown to let the word out that they will trade down if offer is right.

[saltlover]

Two things seem to be emerging:

1. Bender stock is falling, at least for now.
2. 3 pick is an over-pay for Okafor, and Philly will have to add juice to make trade work.

3.  Philly is not in the driver's seat on the Noel/Okafor front. 

It's not about the value.  We all agree that the #3 for Okafor would be a pretty fair trade.  It's that Philly (because of Hinkie) are in this pinch with 4 high-draft pick PF/Cs on the roster and the #1 pick in a draft where the top-2 talents are basically PFs.

When the other team has to trade...you are in power.

This is actually incorrect.  What matters not is how many PF/C types Philly has and thus needs to trade, what matters is how many teams want young PF/C's, and how many are available.

If, for example, 10 teams want such a player, and there are only 5 surplus PF/C on the trade market or in free agency, then Philly is in the drivers seat, because they control the market, and demand is greater than supply.  If, on the other hand, there are 10 such surplus PF/C available, and only 5 teams looking for them, then Philly will be in trouble.

(I'm using the term "surplus", because while Philly might trade any of their 5 such players, they'd only trade 3 at the very most.  So while 5 could be on the market, only 3, or maybe just 1 or 2, would be moved.  Again, this is a hypothetical, but I'm just trying to explain market power.)

I'm not sure it works this way.  There would have to be an incredibly low number quality big men available in the league for Philly to gain an advantage by having a surplus, because the surplus on their roster (which is an imbalance) would take precedence.  If the league was so lacking in big men Philly would just hold onto all three for now and wait (hope)for them to establish real value, and then they'd have an advantage just by being such a talented team and being deep.  As it is, they are worried about poor fit and lack of development via overcrowding. 

What I think is more important in this case is which team they're dealing with.  If they're dealing with the Celtics the Celts are in a position of strength.  1.  There are like 42 available centers in this draft to develop.  2.  They have the assets to trade for a vet center.  3.  they could sign a decent center (btw is Tyson Chanlder healthy and available).    Not only that, but the Celtics would be doing the Sixers an enormous favor by allowing them to end their logjam by adding Dunn.  Huge Huge favor.  I hope Danny won't do that...make Philly a work a bit harder to get their leader for of the next 10 years. 

Other teams in less good shape than the C's might  tend to overpay (gamble) on a Sixer Center being a big time cornerstone piece.  But only if they allow Philly to be the stronger party.

The market is the market.  It is a collection of individual buyers willingness to pay.  The price for each potential buyer is willing to pay is based on both utility gained by acquiring the player (in basketball this is wins) and the scarcity of said player (which can be aggregated if players are deemed similar enough to be homogeneous goods).  Scarcity matters because failure to acquire a player creates a utility increase of zero, and all teams are trying to increase utility, again defined as wins.

The underpaying/overpaying notion is just wrong.  In the NBA market, all teams pretty much know the most other teams are willing to pay, as well as what they're willing to pay, and so they pay just as much as they should to be the top bidder.  Or they should.  If they don't, then they've done a very poor job of gathering information and assessing their competitors.  Where teams "overpay" or "underpay" is due to an incorrect assessment of many wins a given player will provide.  As the impact of a given player can only be crudely estimated, some bargains or lemons may occur.  The Nets, for example, overpaid for Pierce and Garnett not because they gave up more than other teams, but they incorrectly assessed how much of an impact those two would have on their team.  They were willing to pay the most because they had a lot to potentially gain, entering Brooklyn and trying to usurp the Knicks primacy of the market.

Getting back to the Sixers, a buyers market is where there is more supply than demand, and a sellers market is one in which there is more demand than supply.  In a sellers market, the entire supply should be sold to potential buyers, due to excess demand.  Accordingly, the seller with the most market power gets to set the price, because they do not have to worry about being undercut, due to excess demand.  They only need to make certain that they set a price that other teams are willing to pay.

To clarify my original statement, I'm only arguing that what matters is whether or not there is more demand or supply.  You may think that there is ample supply to meet various teams' demands for bigs this summer.  If so, you may be right, in which case it would be a buyers market, and the Sixers, necessary sellers, are in trouble.  I'm not saying I know which way the market is going.  All I'm saying is that the Sixers' necessity to move a player will not negatively affect the price they receive for said player if the demand for the type of players the Sixers are offering is greater than the number of such players available.

[mmmmm]

Kyler: ...You are massively overvaluing Bender and undervaluing Okafor.…  had a lengthy conversation with some folks around [Bender] recently - not good things being said about Bender. …There is so much we do not know about Bender because he does not play much... hard to invest in that scenario. ...Bender could end up being a lot more Darko than people are willing to admit.,,, If you think you have Bender figured out after 208 possessions this year... good for you. Just asking - if Bender is such a game changing star in the waiting, why doesn't he play? Porzinigis over 20 per game... Mario Hezonja around 16 per. Much larger sample size on both. … No. There is a lot of talent there, but talent is one part of the equation.

https://twitter.com/stevekylerNBA

Wow.  I'm sorry, but there is just so much evidence that Kyler has done no research here that this is pretty much worthless.

Bender has been on the floor for WAY more than 208 possessions this season for Maccabi.   He's been on the floor for just under 500 minutes (including both IBSL & Euroleague games).  The typical ratio is a little more than two possessions per minute, which means he's been on the floor close to 1000 possessions.

His comparisons to Porzingis and Hezonja are also reflective of a complete absence of research and understanding of the different contexts for each of these players.

I get that sports writers and 'analysts' and of course most fans here look at Bender and see a giant void of information.

But the Celtics have had their international scout, Benas Matkevicius, following him closely and Austin Ainge has made several trips out to see him.  They already know a ton more about him than folks like Kyler.  And they'll have him in for a workout at Waltham.

That doesn't mean they will pick him at #3.   But they aren't going to rank him based on the same level of ignorance exhibited here.

Frankly, this stuff from Kyler all sounds like more smoke from Danny.  Combining this with the stuff from Ford and Givony's recent draft board rearrangements and it all looks like Danny is putting out a mess of different signals.

It may well be smoke from Danny. I think Kyler and Ford both think Danny's a major bluffer and always a wild card.

As for Bender's minutes, you're counting the Israeli winner league games. Not sure other people give that league much consideration as far as being real competition to Macabbi who has won 51 out of 61 titles there.

I'm counting the minutes from the 38 of games he played in in the IBSL (28), Euroleague (7) and Eurocup(3).  That's what any reasonable scout should be evaluating him on.

If you want to start a discussion comparing the competitive level of a league that is predominately made up of graduates of NCAA basketball who are all older, more experienced, bigger and devoting 100% of their time to basketball as a profession compared to the college schoolboys that other draft picks were playing against, then that's a separate topic.

[MBunge]

Two things seem to be emerging:

1. Bender stock is falling, at least for now.
2. 3 pick is an over-pay for Okafor, and Philly will have to add juice to make trade work.

3.  Philly is not in the driver's seat on the Noel/Okafor front. 

It's not about the value.  We all agree that the #3 for Okafor would be a pretty fair trade.  It's that Philly (because of Hinkie) are in this pinch with 4 high-draft pick PF/Cs on the roster and the #1 pick in a draft where the top-2 talents are basically PFs.

When the other team has to trade...you are in power.

This is actually incorrect.  What matters not is how many PF/C types Philly has and thus needs to trade, what matters is how many teams want young PF/C's, and how many are available.

If, for example, 10 teams want such a player, and there are only 5 surplus PF/C on the trade market or in free agency, then Philly is in the drivers seat, because they control the market, and demand is greater than supply.  If, on the other hand, there are 10 such surplus PF/C available, and only 5 teams looking for them, then Philly will be in trouble.

(I'm using the term "surplus", because while Philly might trade any of their 5 such players, they'd only trade 3 at the very most.  So while 5 could be on the market, only 3, or maybe just 1 or 2, would be moved.  Again, this is a hypothetical, but I'm just trying to explain market power.)

I'm not sure it works this way.  There would have to be an incredibly low number quality big men available in the league for Philly to gain an advantage by having a surplus, because the surplus on their roster (which is an imbalance) would take precedence.  If the league was so lacking in big men Philly would just hold onto all three for now and wait (hope)for them to establish real value, and then they'd have an advantage just by being such a talented team and being deep.  As it is, they are worried about poor fit and lack of development via overcrowding. 

What I think is more important in this case is which team they're dealing with.  If they're dealing with the Celtics the Celts are in a position of strength.  1.  There are like 42 available centers in this draft to develop.  2.  They have the assets to trade for a vet center.  3.  they could sign a decent center (btw is Tyson Chanlder healthy and available).    Not only that, but the Celtics would be doing the Sixers an enormous favor by allowing them to end their logjam by adding Dunn.  Huge Huge favor.  I hope Danny won't do that...make Philly a work a bit harder to get their leader for of the next 10 years. 

Other teams in less good shape than the C's might  tend to overpay (gamble) on a Sixer Center being a big time cornerstone piece.  But only if they allow Philly to be the stronger party.

The market is the market.  It is a collection of individual buyers willingness to pay.  The price for each potential buyer is willing to pay is based on both utility gained by acquiring the player (in basketball this is wins) and the scarcity of said player (which can be aggregated if players are deemed similar enough to be homogeneous goods).  Scarcity matters because failure to acquire a player creates a utility increase of zero, and all teams are trying to increase utility, again defined as wins.

The underpaying/overpaying notion is just wrong.  In the NBA market, all teams pretty much know the most other teams are willing to pay, as well as what they're willing to pay, and so they pay just as much as they should to be the top bidder.  Or they should.  If they don't, then they've done a very poor job of gathering information and assessing their competitors.  Where teams "overpay" or "underpay" is due to an incorrect assessment of many wins a given player will provide.  As the impact of a given player can only be crudely estimated, some bargains or lemons may occur.  The Nets, for example, overpaid for Pierce and Garnett not because they gave up more than other teams, but they incorrectly assessed how much of an impact those two would have on their team.  They were willing to pay the most because they had a lot to potentially gain, entering Brooklyn and trying to usurp the Knicks primacy of the market.

Getting back to the Sixers, a buyers market is where there is more supply than demand, and a sellers market is one in which there is more demand than supply.  In a sellers market, the entire supply should be sold to potential buyers, due to excess demand.  Accordingly, the seller with the most market power gets to set the price, because they do not have to worry about being undercut, due to excess demand.  They only need to make certain that they set a price that other teams are willing to pay.

To clarify my original statement, I'm only arguing that what matters is whether or not there is more demand or supply.  You may think that there is ample supply to meet various teams' demands for bigs this summer.  If so, you may be right, in which case it would be a buyers market, and the Sixers, necessary sellers, are in trouble.  I'm not saying I know which way the market is going.  All I'm saying is that the Sixers' necessity to move a player will not negatively affect the price they receive for said player if the demand for the type of players the Sixers are offering is greater than the number of such players available.

But the necessity of Philly to move Noel affects the demand for him.

1.  The market for Noel is pretty well defined.  We're talking about teams that want Noel and have something they value less than Noel but that Philly values more.  For example, the Knicks would like to trade for Noel but the only thing they have Philly would want is Porzingis and the Knicks aren't making that deal.

2.  Within that group of practical trade partners, the dynamic now becomes how much they want Noel vs. how much Philly wants to get rid of him.  And that unfolds against the backdrop of Noel approaching free agency.

Mike

[byennie]

The market is the market.  It is a collection of individual buyers willingness to pay.  The price for each potential buyer is willing to pay is based on both utility gained by acquiring the player (in basketball this is wins) and the scarcity of said player (which can be aggregated if players are deemed similar enough to be homogeneous goods).  Scarcity matters because failure to acquire a player creates a utility increase of zero, and all teams are trying to increase utility, again defined as wins.

The underpaying/overpaying notion is just wrong.  In the NBA market, all teams pretty much know the most other teams are willing to pay, as well as what they're willing to pay, and so they pay just as much as they should to be the top bidder.  Or they should.  If they don't, then they've done a very poor job of gathering information and assessing their competitors.  Where teams "overpay" or "underpay" is due to an incorrect assessment of many wins a given player will provide.  As the impact of a given player can only be crudely estimated, some bargains or lemons may occur.  The Nets, for example, overpaid for Pierce and Garnett not because they gave up more than other teams, but they incorrectly assessed how much of an impact those two would have on their team.  They were willing to pay the most because they had a lot to potentially gain, entering Brooklyn and trying to usurp the Knicks primacy of the market.

Getting back to the Sixers, a buyers market is where there is more supply than demand, and a sellers market is one in which there is more demand than supply.  In a sellers market, the entire supply should be sold to potential buyers, due to excess demand.  Accordingly, the seller with the most market power gets to set the price, because they do not have to worry about being undercut, due to excess demand.  They only need to make certain that they set a price that other teams are willing to pay.

To clarify my original statement, I'm only arguing that what matters is whether or not there is more demand or supply.  You may think that there is ample supply to meet various teams' demands for bigs this summer.  If so, you may be right, in which case it would be a buyers market, and the Sixers, necessary sellers, are in trouble.  I'm not saying I know which way the market is going.  All I'm saying is that the Sixers' necessity to move a player will not negatively affect the price they receive for said player if the demand for the type of players the Sixers are offering is greater than the number of such players available.

The NBA trade market is miles away from commodities with known (or fixed) values, or even rational actors. Player value depends on the team fit, highly subjective talent assessments, insider knowledge of other offers (hardly a given), salary cap ramifications that vary from team to team, ability to resign players, marketing deals, GM and ownership priorities, temperamental players, valuation of draft picks, salary cap projections, injury reports and on and on.

Points being- your assessment of supply/demand isn't wrong per se, but at the end of the day NBA trades are pretty unpredictable and don't fit into a box.