Why hasn't BOS and MEM swapped Jaylen Brown for Ja Morant, when the apron math alone creates +$13.7M of value for both sides?
Jaylen Brown ($53.1M, BOS) and Ja Morant ($39.4M, MEM) sit at different apron tiers, and repricing each contract at the OTHER team's tier is enough to leave both front offices ahead: BOS nets +$11.7M, MEM nets +$2.0M.
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 +$13.7M 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 — +$13.7M of surplus created by the apron gap
BOS banks +$11.7M of surplus: Ja Morant reprices to $78.8M of true cost at the second apron, cheaper value than Jaylen Brown was returning.
MEM lands close to even (+$2.0M): Jaylen Brown's repriced value roughly matches what Ja Morant was worth here.
Jaylen Brown's $53.1M is priced at 2.00× on BOS but 1.00× on MEM — moving the bigger salary toward the BOS tier is what creates +$13.7M of surplus, before either roster plays a game.
Under these assumptions both front offices come out ahead — BOS +$11.7M, MEM +$2.0M. That is the outcome the apron era makes possible: the same production is simply worth more on the cheaper books.
Legality read: Salaries are $13.7M 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 — −$76.3M on $236M still owed
Albatross risk — −$25.2M on $126M still owed