Better way to think about Trade Value

Well, not a better way. Just a simpler way.

(Apologies for not including a meme in this post)

I love the trade value columns/pods because I think it's a fun exercise to consider contracts, age, injuries, etc. But the hypothetical often used to make decisions on the rankings is "Would Team X trade Player A for Team Y's Player B?" If yes, then Player B should be higher in the Trade Value Rankings.

But that runs you into problems: Team X and Y could be in different stages (win now vs rebuild). The players may or may not fit positional needs for their potential new team. And some players are more valuable to their current team than any other team (Curry, for example). All these things make for non-Apples-to-Apples comparisons when figuring out the rankings.

A simple fix: Instead of considering if one player would be traded for the other, ask which of the two players would bring in the greater haul, if available on the open market? This question still forces you to consider contracts, age, injuries, etc. It just takes out the team-specific variables involved.

An example: Bill had Booker at 17 and Mobley at 13. Would CLE trade Mobley to PHX for Booker? No, because CLE is all set already with Mitchell. But that fact alone shouldn't mean Mobley should be higher. After all, PHX might not do it either because they have Durant. But If ALL other teams were involved in trade talks, which player would bring in the bigger haul of talent+picks? It still might be Mobley! I don't really know. But that's the question that should be asked.

Surprised Bill hasn't figured this out.