Guide · 9 min read

How NBA trade grades actually work

Any time a real trade happens, four different outlets publish four different grades within an hour. This isn't because the analysts are lazy — it's because grading a trade is a weighted sum of things that don't have a single right weight. Here's what's actually in the box.

Step 1: Turn every player into a number

The workhorse metric is VORP — Value Over Replacement Player. It estimates how many points per 100 possessions a player produces above a fringe roster player, then scales by minutes. A VORP of 3.0 is All-Star territory. 6.0+ is MVP territory. Fringe rotation is roughly 0.

VORP is imperfect. It systematically undersells elite team defenders and low-usage playmakers (Marcus Smart at his peak, Draymond Green in the 2015 Finals). It rewards volume scoring on losing teams (Luka Dončić on 25-win Dallas). But it's the least gameable number available, and any serious grader starts there.

Step 2: Age-adjust everything

The mistake every casual "trade grader" makes is treating 2.0 VORP the same at every age. It isn't. A 23-year-old with 2.0 VORP is probably a 3.5 VORP player at 26. A 33-year-old with 2.0 VORP is probably a 0.5 VORP player at 36, if he's healthy.

Any real grader multiplies raw production by an age curve. The exact shape varies. A reasonable curve is: +15% under 22, +10% under 25, flat 25–28, −8% at 30, −22% at 33, −40% at 36, off a cliff after. Two of the biggest grade splits between ESPN and The Ringer on any given deadline day come down to whether they used a steep age curve or a soft one.

Step 3: Contract surplus

A player earning $8M when he plays like an $18M player carries $10M of surplus value. That surplus is worth roughly the same as a mid-first-round pick — and often more, because it's realized immediately and it doesn't need to be developed.

This is why "expiring contract" and "the same money on a three-year deal" trade at very different values. It's also why teams pay big for players finishing rookie extensions (surplus is enormous) and try to dump players early into supermax years (surplus is deeply negative).

Step 4: Team fit

The same player is not worth the same to every team. A backup wing defender is worth a first-round pick to a Finals contender and almost nothing to a rebuild. Real graders try to measure this — sometimes by checking rotation gaps (does the destination team already have three of this archetype?), sometimes by checking positional need against depth-chart minutes.

Fit is the component graders disagree on most. It's also the component fans notice most: when a trade looks obvious to fit ("that's the exact type of player they needed") but the grader gives it a B, it's usually because the fit multiplier in the model is small.

Step 5: Draft picks

Picks are converted to units. A top-3 pick is worth roughly 8–10 units of expected career value; a late lottery pick is 3–5; a late first is 1–2; a mid-second is 0.4–0.7. Protections lower the value by an expected-hit-rate multiplier. Swaps are valued at the expected point difference between the two teams' finishes.

The hidden variable is when the pick conveys. A 2031 first is much more uncertain than a 2027 first, and different graders discount future picks at very different rates. This is a common source of grade splits on picks-heavy deals.

Step 6: Sum, weight, letter-grade

Add the weighted components per team. Convert to a letter grade using a distribution picked ahead of time — usually B is average, A means a clear win, C means a clear loss. Some graders zero-center per team (a fair trade is B/B). Others grade absolutely (a small-market rebuild that got 40 cents on the dollar gets a C even if it was the best available offer).

Why grades disagree so much

Two graders with the same components can land two full grades apart because they weighted:

• Age curve steepness
• Contract surplus vs. raw on-court value
• Fit as a real factor vs. a rounding term
• Future picks with a 5% or a 15% annual discount
• Rebuild teams graded absolutely vs. relative to their best alternative

None of these are objectively right. When you disagree with a grade — ours or anyone else's — you're almost always disagreeing with a weight, not a number.

What Hardwood does

The Hardwood methodology page lists our weights and where each number comes from. We publish them because the point of a grade is that you can argue with it — and you can only argue with a grade you can see inside.