But, “another” Melo isn’t really the point. This is an illustration of adding the player that has enough impact to make you a championship contender. And every year we should be trying to find that.
I would also suggest that this definition isn’t sufficient. It merely relies on the inherent meaning of “over-” to represent a nebulous concept of ‘too much,’ and no one can dispute that ‘too much’ isn’t too much. Making the word meaningful means we’d have to define “market value,” and since two different teams/GMs will have different needs, resources, and assessments, there isn’t an empirical value for anyone. What we decide is too much to pay—that’s based on what we have available to pay, not based on what the player could do for us.
If Cooper Flagg were available in the portal, Kline’s valuation vs Duke’s would be two different numbers. Add in all the other teams and there would be 20 different numbers. Which one represents “market value?” The highest? If that’s the case, then anyone who outbids anyone else has overpaid. But, that’s simply how you win a bid.
Don’t misunderstand me—I think this entire thing is ludicrous, but it is what we need to deal with now. And absent actual numbers, we’re still discussing this as if it’s a simple, black and white matter, when it’s more slippery than that. For example, if a GM thinks a player should be gettable for no more than $1M and he asks for 1.2, clinging to your ‘principle’ over 200k and compromising your season and the other $6M you are already paying may seem foolish to many. If you‘re sticking to your guns because going forward and paying it means you’re raising the payout level for subsequent seasons, well, other factors are going to do that for you. The amount The kid glowing to Utah is getting—that would have been outlandish a year ago.
