Cade Cunningham
Paying a premium — −$7.1M under water
Cade Cunningham projects to 11.2 marginal wins — $39.3M of on-court value — against an apron-adjusted true cost of $46.4M.
Paying a premium — −$7.1M under water
The verdict swings from −$17.5M (bear) to +$4.5M (bull) — too assumption-sensitive to move on; let another season of data settle the call.
For $46.4M this season (5 yr, $269M total), you are buying 11.2 marginal wins of EPM production — $39.3M of value at $3.5M/win. Against an apron-adjusted true cost of $46.4M, that nets −$7.1M of surplus, 103rd 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 $50.9M and surplus swings to +$4.5M — fair value in the optimistic case.
If a marginal win is worth less and the apron bites harder, true cost rises to $46.4M and surplus falls to −$17.5M — an overpay 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: Cade Cunningham grades Paying a premium 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 ($46.4M vs $46.4M) and impact (4.3 vs 4.2); his deal grades paying a premium at −$8.7M.
Similar money band ($46.6M vs $46.4M) and impact (4.4 vs 4.2); his deal grades albatross risk at −$54.9M.
Similar money band ($47.3M vs $46.4M) and impact (4.4 vs 4.2); his deal grades paying a premium at −$9.0M.
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 = 4.2 · 2025-26 · 75 games · 2,650 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.
(4.2 − (-2.0)) × 5,521 poss ÷ 100 = 342 net pts
342 ÷ 30.5 = 11.2 wins
Wins are priced at your $/win setting ($3.5M per win).
11.2 wins × $3.5M = $39.3M
DET is a below apron team, so every Cade Cunningham dollar is charged at 1.00× — your setting for what that tier’s tax and roster restrictions really cost. Contract: 5 yrs · $269M remaining.
$46.4M cap hit × 1.00 = $46.4M
$39.3M − $46.4M = −$7.1M
Cade Cunningham 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.