Which is more worthwhile to White and Bridges contract?

Bridges and the Knicks reached a four-year, $150 million contract. Bridges did not insist on a maximum salary, but gave up 6 million. Many fans think this contract is a bit premium. For comparison, White's 4-year, 125.9 million contract is a very valuable contract, with a very cost-effectiveness.

Judging from the 2024-25 playoff data, Derek White's average of 18.8 points, 5.1 rebounds, 3.5 assists per game is indeed better than Mikal Bridges' 15.6 points, 4.5 rebounds, 2.9 assists. But the value assessment of basketball cannot rely solely on a single dimension: White undertakes more offensive initiation tasks in the Celtic system, and his explosiveness in scoring is amplified under the restraint of double-Tanhua.

, and Bridges plays the role of an offensive and defensive conversion hub in the Knicks. His 1.7 steals and a 460-kilometer playoff run distance (NBA history record), show the tactical value that is far beyond the basic data.

But Bridges has a very valuable attribute, that is, it is to be patient. The full attendance record is a modern basketball miracle - zero absences in 556 regular season games in 7 seasons, and this stability makes its contract natural risk resistance. Even if his athletic ability declines after the age of 30, his defensive experience and tactical literacy can still maintain his peak period for at least three years. Therefore, it has a natural risk resistance of 150 million contracts for 4 years. In this regard, the Knicks are not losing money.

Of course, White is not the kind of player with crisp attributes, and he also helped the team win the championship. This four-year contract is also very cost-effective.

White undertakes more offensive initiation tasks in the Celtic system, and his explosive scoring power is amplified under the constraints of the double-Tanhua; while Bridges plays the role of an offensive and defensive transformation hub in the Knicks, with 1.7 steals and a 460-kilometer playoff running distance (NBA historical record), showing tactical value far beyond the basic data.

In general, Bridges' contract premium reflects the competition for scarce front-line resources, while White's contract is an accurate investment in combat power. If the championship is the ultimate goal, the 150 million paid by the Knicks for Bridges is more like a "stud" gambling; while the 125 million Celtics gave White is a steady-scale championship puzzle purchase.

Many people say that this is the small ball era, but I personally think that this era is still an era where the front line is the king, and high-quality front line is much scarce than defenders. Bridges' contract may be more in line with the laws of business value, but White's "big heart" attributes shown in the playoffs may determine the direction of the series at a critical moment. The value of the two contracts ultimately depends on the team's strategic positioning and the precise grasp of the championship window.

So the conclusion is simple: for the Knicks, Bridges' contract is "must be given" because the forward defense core cannot find a replacement; for the Celtics, White's contract is "worth the money" because he perfectly fills the gap in the championship puzzle.

If you go out of the team's perspective, just talk about the contract itself? Bridges' 150 million is more "resistant to declines" - the older the forward, the more popular he is, his defensive experience can be eaten until he is 32 years old; White's 125.9 million is slightly more risky, and the defender's athletic ability declines rapidly, and his function may be discounted after the age of 30.

But where does the NBA contract have an absolute "value"? What can help the team win is a good contract.