Why hasn't MIN and NOP swapped Anthony Edwards for Jordan Poole, when the apron math alone creates +$13.6M of value for both sides?
Anthony Edwards ($45.6M, MIN) and Jordan Poole ($32.0M, NOP) sit at different apron tiers, and repricing each contract at the OTHER team's tier is enough to leave both front offices ahead: MIN nets +$6.8M, NOP nets +$6.8M.
That's a free lunch the apron created, purely on value — and the value model has no way to see the fit, draft compensation, or locker-room fallout that's presumably the real reason nobody has made this call.
Build the case for what the value model can't price — positional fit, third-team logistics, or a health/character flag — and show why it outweighs +$13.6M of created surplus.
What’s already on the record.
Rendered under the house assumption set on the server — this is not personalized. Your own sliders and lens apply once you open a player’s page or clip from a live surface.
Both win — +$13.6M of surplus created by the apron gap
MIN banks +$6.8M of surplus: Jordan Poole reprices to $64.0M of true cost at the second apron, cheaper value than Anthony Edwards was returning.
NOP banks +$6.8M of surplus: Anthony Edwards reprices to $45.6M of true cost at the below apron, cheaper value than Jordan Poole was returning.
Anthony Edwards's $45.6M is priced at 2.00× on MIN but 1.00× on NOP — moving the bigger salary toward the MIN tier is what creates +$13.6M of surplus, before either roster plays a game.
Under these assumptions both front offices come out ahead — MIN +$6.8M, NOP +$6.8M. That is the outcome the apron era makes possible: the same production is simply worth more on the cheaper books.
Legality read: Salaries are $13.6M apart — a straight swap likely needs filler contracts to satisfy salary matching.
What this ignores: Pure value only: this ignores positional fit, roster construction, draft compensation, health, and contract length. A real front office weighs all of them — the surplus math is the starting point of the conversation, not the end of it.
Computed under model defaults
Albatross risk — −$43.9M on $208M still owed
Caution — the verdict flips somewhere across bear/base/bull assumptions. This call is assumption-sensitive, not settled.
Paying a premium — −$5.1M under water
Caution — the verdict flips somewhere across bear/base/bull assumptions. This call is assumption-sensitive, not settled.