Jonathan Kuminga
Albatross risk — −$6.3M on $7.8M still owed
Jonathan Kuminga projects to 1.5 marginal wins — $5.4M of on-court value — against an apron-adjusted true cost of $11.7M.
Albatross risk — −$6.3M on $7.8M still owed
The verdict swings from −$10.8M (bear) to −$1.1M (bull) — too assumption-sensitive to move on; let another season of data settle the call.
For $7.8M this season (1 yr, $7.8M total), you are buying 1.5 marginal wins of EPM production — $5.4M of value at $3.5M/win. Against an apron-adjusted true cost of $11.7M, that nets −$6.3M of surplus, 97th of 178 tracked contracts — it grades as an albatross.
If wins price up toward $4.2M/win and the apron tax eases, production value climbs to $8.6M and surplus swings to −$1.1M — fair value in the optimistic case.
If a marginal win is worth less and the apron bites harder, true cost rises to $13.7M and surplus falls to −$10.8M — 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: Jonathan Kuminga 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.
1 of 5 desks disagree with the verdict above — that disagreement is the story.
Take the question to the docket →Similar money band ($7.7M vs $7.8M) and impact (-0.5 vs -0.5); his deal grades paying a premium at −$2.3M.
Similar money band ($8.0M vs $7.8M) and impact (-0.5 vs -0.5); his deal grades fairly priced at −$0.8M.
Similar money band ($8.0M vs $7.8M) and impact (-0.5 vs -0.5); his deal grades albatross risk at −$4.8M.
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 = -0.5 · 2025-26 · 65 games · 1,500 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.
(-0.5 − (-2.0)) × 3,125 poss ÷ 100 = 47 net pts
47 ÷ 30.5 = 1.5 wins
Wins are priced at your $/win setting ($3.5M per win).
1.5 wins × $3.5M = $5.4M
GSW is a first apron team, so every Jonathan Kuminga dollar is charged at 1.50× — your setting for what that tier’s tax and roster restrictions really cost. Contract: 1 yr · $7.8M remaining.
$7.8M cap hit × 1.50 = $11.7M
$5.4M − $11.7M = −$6.3M
Jonathan Kuminga 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.