I mean I would assume so on court since they are adding wins. I mean if Walkers contributions mean very little to draft positioning I assume we would not care at all if the vet was less than that. If we signed them to a 3-4 year deal I assume value would be close since Walker is only cheap for 2 years.
So being much younger and having a much higher likelihood of future improvement over some random vet we can sign are just negligible factors?
Nope… but that’s the awesome thing… those factors would obviously have an impact on his market value… so we would have captured that already at least in part. And again… if he is roughly the same player he was last year his market value tanks… so we’ve insulated ourselves against some loss there.
Yeah I mean, if the Jazz don't believe in him and think this is the best he'll be value-wise, then sure, trade him if you can get value that you think will be better in the longterm.
Third team required
I mean somewhere between 3-30% based on whatever math you decide to pull out of your *** lol.
You spoke of the front office but then talked about what the coach did. (im not so sure they are on the same page. Front office might like kessler hence no trade. Hardy might not like him hence low minutes)
Repeating it yet again:
Repeat it as much as you want. It’s numbers pulled out of space. Citing 3% like it’s a number nasa certified is hilarious… sorry.
Assign your own values. I don't think any of mine are outlandish, but I'm certainly not pretending it's NASA-certified. If anything, I think the last variable is probably too high, but whatever:
I suspect the Wolves would be sending out Towns to get Lauri, and since we don't need Towns, we would get whatever the other team gives up for Towns. This is supposing that there is a larger market for Towns than Lauri, which outside of the morons on Twitter, I don't see.
