Brandon Ingram
Paying a premium — −$8.1M under water
Brandon Ingram projects to 10.2 marginal wins — $35.9M of on-court value — against an apron-adjusted true cost of $44.0M.
Paying a premium — −$8.1M under water
At −$8.1M under water the deal drags the books; it still grades "needs-sweetener", so quietly canvassing the market beats waiting for it to worsen.
For $44.0M this season (2 yr, $92.4M total), you are buying 10.2 marginal wins of EPM production — $35.9M of value at $3.5M/win. Against an apron-adjusted true cost of $44.0M, that nets −$8.1M of surplus, 107th of 178 tracked contracts — it grades as an overpay.
If wins price up toward $4.2M/win and the apron tax eases, production value climbs to $46.6M and surplus swings to +$2.6M — fair value in the optimistic case.
If a marginal win is worth less and the apron bites harder, true cost rises to $44.0M and surplus falls to −$17.7M — an albatross in the pessimistic case; the verdict flips across the band.
Caution — the verdict flips somewhere across bear/base/bull assumptions. This call is assumption-sensitive, not settled.
This call changes under bear assumptions: Brandon Ingram grades Albatross risk in the bear case but Fairly pricedin the bull case — treat the verdict above as a live read of today’s sliders, not a settled fact.
The market's own numbers: a win costs what the middle of the league pays for it.
Every apron dollar is real money — the tax ledger, not the highlight reel, decides who wins the summer.
Banners hang forever. A marginal win today is worth almost any tomorrow, and the tax is the cost of doing business.
Wins you buy before you're ready are the most expensive wins in basketball — flexibility is the only asset that never ages.
The tenth man is closer to the star than the star's agent admits — pay for scarcity you can prove, not reputation.
2 of 5 desks disagree with the verdict above — that disagreement is the story.
Take the question to the docket →Similar money band ($43.4M vs $44.0M) and impact (3.9 vs 4.0); his deal grades paying a premium at −$8.1M.
Similar money band ($42.5M vs $44.0M) and impact (3.8 vs 4.0); his deal grades albatross risk at −$50.3M.
Similar money band ($46.4M vs $44.0M) and impact (4.2 vs 4.0); his deal grades paying a premium at −$7.1M.
How the model gets there.
The audit trail behind every figure in the memo above — six steps from raw on-court impact to the final surplus verdict, using the same sliders. Drag any assumption and the memo above updates with it.
AASV = wins × $/win − cap hit × apron multiplier. Set the knobs to your own front-office judgment — every number on this page updates live.
League estimated net rating (per 100 poss. vs. an average player), cached from stats.nba.com (seed snapshot).
Est. Impact = 4.0 · 2025-26 · 72 games · 2,500 minutes
Impact is credited above replacement level (-2.0), scaled by the possessions he actually played (minutes × 2.08/min), then converted at 30.5 net points per win.
(4.0 − (-2.0)) × 5,208 poss ÷ 100 = 313 net pts
313 ÷ 30.5 = 10.2 wins
Wins are priced at your $/win setting ($3.5M per win).
10.2 wins × $3.5M = $35.9M
TOR is a below apron team, so every Brandon Ingram dollar is charged at 1.00× — your setting for what that tier’s tax and roster restrictions really cost. Contract: 2 yrs · $92.4M remaining.
$44.0M cap hit × 1.00 = $44.0M
$35.9M − $44.0M = −$8.1M
Brandon Ingram costs more than he produces under these assumptions — the contract eats value.
First season on file — the trend view, and its tie-in to aging risk, unlocks once another season lands.