The Real Cost of Elton Brand

You’ve convinced me. We need to trade Jefferson for Iggy and each draft at the position they’re at right now…

as usual. I appreciate the way you frame it as the total cost (and benefit) of Brand and Turner, vs. just the cost of Brand.

However, isn’t it even more accurate to compare, say, the total cost and benefit of keeping Al and drafting Wes Johnson, vs. the total cost and benefit of Brand and Turner?

Also, very useful to look at the success/failure rate of the 2nd overall picks. However, it seems that only Durant and Beasley had the level of college production that Evan Turner had during his last year at Ohio State-Columbus.

To quickly summarize your point – is the comparison that Turner produces like a $16 million a year player and Brand produces like an MLE/2nd pick of the draft compensation level player? As I understand it the equation being proposed as one way of looking at this is instead of:
Brand = $16 million at 13-6
Turner = $5 million at 16-7 (just pulling numbers out of a hat)

in Kahn’s head it’s:
Brand = essentially $5.7 million for 13-6 production
Turner = $15 million for (hopefully) 20-7-5 production

is that about right?

FWIW, I do think that Brand is still a better player than 13-6. Al is still the better value – I’m not arguing against that – but I don’t think Brand is as bad as 13-6. It’s tough to project, as injuries have completely derailed him, but part of his game was always smarts and effort and that can’t be undervalued either.

Ugh – why does it have to be such an albatross contract? If it was even $1-2 million less per year it would be a no brainer for me. I guess I see it like this – if you are convinced that Evan Turner is the best prospect you’re going to get to run Rambis’ offense through/around (with Rubio as the PG) over the next few years, then I think you do it. Evaluating Turner goes beyond just the three years of Brand, IMO – it’s having the right to sign him to his next contract, it’s the luxury of having the player you need to make things work around and here for the foreseeable future. Flip had KG – he didn’t have to go out and sign him later or accept some lesser substitute – he had the real thing here and that started everything for him.

If Kahn and Rambis truly believe that Turner’s that guy, and Rubio’s that guy, then I’m inclined to say they should take on Brand’s contract. Is it a monkey on our backs? Yes. But is it really going to interfere with signing Rubio and Turner to massive contracts later? Nope. If anything it holds cap space for those two in a player we’ll have no problem not resigning. Again, if those two young guys are the guys/players we think they are, then part of me says I’d rather not have to deal with whether we want to overpay Al Jeff on his third contract while trying to sign Ricky and Turner to their second contracts (shades of Randy Foye this summer, you know?).

I’m probably in the minority, but that’s how I’m seeing it for the moment.

I think we will have a hard time spending the money on anyone else, so I say we trade Al + peanuts for the #2 and Brand.

My biggest concern is that I’m not sure Turner will be a star. But I think he’ll be a good starter and that + Rubio + Cousins/Favors is the start of something hopeful and we haven’t been hopeful in a number of years.

Highlights of Wes Johnson ATTACK Gym workout:

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Wesley-Johnson-1215/

that the Brand contract is worth it, it’s not like we are just taking on a huge contract, we still get a player who can play the game. The only other deal I would take for Al is if we could get Danny Granger.

we will not sign a max free agent any time soon

People say he needs a veteran guy to keep him check, show him the ropes. I am not sure Al Jefferson is that guy. Without knowing Cousins’ personal philosophy on the matter I think he would be more likely listen to Brand over Al.

Perhaps the reward isn’t just Turner at 2 but also how does Cousins mature/produce/etc if we take him at 4 with or without a veteran presence on the team.

Yes, 17 million a year is A LOT for a vet presence but we also would keep #4 (hypothetically).

If I could go Al for Brand and 2 I would. I think Brand is better than 13/6 (just as I think Al is better than 17/9). Perhaps not substantially better (both of them) but they both have some room to add more stats.

I dunno, just a though.

The excellent original post here treats the question as if the terms of the agreement between owners and players will be basically stable. Another whole added wing in the mansion of the risk, here, is that the CBA ground can also shift under a team’s feet.

If there was to be a lockout, how would that change the cap (and simply financial) implications of Brand’s contract? In previous work stoppages, have the players forfeited money due them for missed games and deadlines and so on? If so, that ameliorates the affect of the second year on his deal.

However, after that (if it happens at all, though based on early ownership signals it sure seems likely) you have a new CBA. The degree of flexibility the Wolves might have then would depend on stuff like whether old contracts were “grandfathered in” – as they weren’t back with KG’s deal, which cost the Wolves plenty in every sense.

In a more immediate sense, though, doesn’t the prospect of carrying Brand’s contract into a new (and very possibly more stingy) cap structure make taking on his deal more valuable this summer? The Sixers are going to get stung even worse on the new terms than they were by present rules…. So it seems.

When we get into these sorts of balancing acts on either side of potential trades, the weight of something like Brand’s contract is tricky. It differs from different perspectives; Philadelphia fans aren’t going to see it in the same terms as the 76ers front office, to start with basics.

Every time we start the sort of utilitarian calculus in this post, for me the back and forth seems to get bigger, bit by bit. First it’s Al for the #2 and Brand – but the 76ers are going to shuffle their feet. Then you start introducing elements like Dalembert or Iguodala, and the #4…. Or maybe a third party’s player moving around too?

It just seems like to get the balancing point right, the pool of assets involved is going to be bigger than two players and a single pick.

I think you state things well, especially about this deal only making sense if the Wolves are convinced Turner is a sure thing (I think he is, or at least as close as it gets in the draft). However, a couple counter points need to be made:
1. As Kahn said in the interview, these moves aren’t made in a vacuum. Perhaps there is a better deal to be made, but I doubt it (If so, do it). Sure, this is a bad THREE year contract, but is it really going to hurt the Wolves for three years? I don’t think they are going to do anything else with the money this year (free agents are going to be too expensive), and doubt they will next summer either (not much of a free agent class it appears). So realistically, Brand may only hamstring what they can do for one season.
2. Turner fills a position of need, and their system. Not sure there are a lot of better options.
3. Brand may not cost as much as it appears. It is almost universally believed there will be a lockout next year, even if only 10 games, Brand costs that much less.
4. Brand may be movable in a year or two. Perhaps a team with an injured player making a few million less needs a PF, could be an opportunity for the Wolves to save some money for a year, or even get out of the last year of the deal.

Bottom line is, the Wolves made moves last summer, and the summer before under the pretense they were putting themselves in a position to spend money this summer to improve. The fans should expect them to do what they said they were going to do.

…but I still say no. The first reason I say no is I don’t believe Philly wants to trade out of the top ten. That means we would have to include the fourth. It seems more reasonable for the Pistons or Jazz to make move for the second pick. Either Kirelenko and the ninth or Prince and the seventh might work. The second reason would be that Turner isn’t the Sixers pick. If they stay at two I believe they will take Favors. Finally the third reason. If we’re going to gamble we might as well gamble on Cousins at four. Big men are a lot harder to find and we could use our next two picks to move up and take someone like Henry or Anderson.

On to another topic. I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable to think of Minnesota as a free agent destination. If Boozer signed with Utah a few years ago why is it the consensus opinion that nobody would ever sign with the Wolves. If we put together a nice core of talented young players that start to develop some chemistry we become a bit more appealing than we are this year. If you add to that the arrival of Rubio that adds even more appeal. Finally if we trade one of our all-star caliber power towards for a player or draft pick of equal value that adds even more appeal. The reason we are not mentioned as a destination for any of the marquee names in this years market isn’t the cold weather. It’s the fact that we won less than twenty games this year.

This is how I view his deal

2010: 16 million. Bad deal
2011: Lockout season. There is a good chance Brand will be paid far less then 17 million if you believe a lockout is looming. Who knows, the Wolves might not even have to pay him for a full season.
2012: 18 million. But it is an 18 million dollar expiring contract, which will at least be somewhat more desirable.

Through that lens, it seems like a no-brainer that the Wolves trade Al Jefferson for the #2 if we don’t have to give up the #4.

I’m glad you enjoyed the article. It was an attempt to try to get a more realistic feel for the total value of the package, and to decide whether Elton Brand’s contract was so bad, that Brand + #2 may not even have positive trade value. It shouldn’t necessarily take the a Top Three contract in the NBA to balance out a Bottom Three contract, but I think its easy to overlook just how bad Brand’s deal is, when we’ve been getting starry-eyed over Evan Turner’s potential for the last couple of months.

Let me briefly respond to some of your comments.

Projecting the success of an NBA prospect needs to be done on an individual basis, as each one will have strengths and weaknesses that are all his own. My point by listing the #2’s was to demonstrate that David Kahn won’t be able to just pencil in Evan Turner to be equal to his highest potential .. there is a great deal of risk, and maybe “likelyhood”, that he will not be an All Star. Using picks 2-4 shows that its possible to find talent in that range, but a look at the history demonstrates that teams can’t always identify which guy will emerge at the time of the pick, and that’s a situation we may find ourselves in as well.

I think mentioning the new CBA is a very good point. However, we’re dealing with enough projections and uncertainty with the current model, that we’d lose a lot of validity if we added that “What If?.” I wanted to point out though that posters shouldn’t overvalue Brand’s $18 mil expiring in 2012-13. An expiring only has value if a team is willing to use it to take on salary that goes even farther, and if MIN is willing to do that, that is where the value ends. In other words, they can spend the money on other – more productive/valuable players and stuill trade them as expirings, or open up money elsewhere. Obviously having an unprductive $18 mil expiring is worth far less than trading Jefferson to DET for Prince and the #7, and having raw cap space in 2012-13. Brand is only one mechanism, and an overpaid one at that — the value is in Glen Taylor’s willingness to continue to spend.

Acquiring Brand means we’re stuck with the hot potato. That means lost opportunity costs.

Incidentally, I struggle to state definitively whether Turner + Brand has positive trade value, but I am a little more confident that Jefferson does. The NBA values big men and always has. Last season, the $17 mil Zach Randolph, who last summer was inferior to Jefferson in every way, still got back positive trade value with half expirings and half cap space. Jefferson is paid less and brings the possibility of Boozer or Amare-ish production. If that’s not convincing, I think the DET trade of #7 + Prince demonstrates positive trade value — otherwise the entire offer would be closer to an expiring. We’ll have a better view of the market for Al Jefferson when we see what type of deals that players like Boozer get this summer.

Whether the Timberwolves would do the deal is only half the equation — the Sixers front office would need to do it as well. Since they are owned by a faceless conglomerate in Comcast, I think their fans would be even less forgiving if they traded away the exciting Evan Turner in a deal that could be called a salary dump. To save face, they need an exciting player coming back. Would Al fit the bill? Even the valuable #4 looks bad to fans if you trade away the #2. However, an often overlooked asset MIN carries is 2010 cap space, which could be very valuable to a team like Philadelphia who’ll be about $7 mil over the luxury threshold. If PHI can disguise the talent swap in the #2, if the Wolves would take on a player like $6-7 mil Kapono (expiring), it would save the Sixers about $17 million dollars, and be a useful trade asset.

Thanks for the interesting comments!