Hollinger’s free-agent rankings put the spotlight on Phoenix’s Gillespie and Williams

The NBA season is over, and the league’s offseason chess match is no longer theoretical for the Phoenix Suns. In a new player ranking centered on Hollinger-style free-agent valuation, Yahoo Sports placed focus on two names tied to Phoenix’s plans: Gillespie and Williams. The takeaway is less about a single “best” target and more about the risk of letting useful, buy-in players drift away during a summer when everyone is recalculating value.

The rankings matter because Hollinger’s approach tries to translate what a player does into a consistent market framework, then compares that output across the broader pool of potential free agents. In other words, it is built to answer a question general managers face every spring: if you cannot retain a role player at a workable price, what does that mean for the cost of replacing production, spacing, defense, and lineup flexibility? Yahoo’s framing points directly to that question for Phoenix.

For the Suns, the offseason priority is straightforward. Teams do not just want talent, they want continuity around their existing core, particularly when depth affects matchups and the ability to survive injuries or foul trouble over a long postseason run. Yahoo’s note that Hollinger’s valuations “underscore” the importance of keeping Suns players suggests the market value for these internal options is meaningful enough that losing them would create a gap the front office would have to fill elsewhere, likely at a higher price or with less certainty.

Gillespie and Williams, as identified by Yahoo Sports in this free-agent ranking exercise, are part of that same organizational calculus. Even without announcing any deals or contract particulars, the appearance of both names in the “this year’s free agents” valuation conversation indicates that they are not being treated as throwaway assets. They are being discussed as players whose skill sets can translate to on-court impact, and whose market demand could rise once the negotiating period begins in earnest.

There is also a roster-construction angle worth watching. In most recent seasons, the league has continued to reward teams that can match different styles: protect the rim, guard multiple positions, and keep shooting threats available on the floor. In a valuation-based ranking, players who contribute in several of those categories tend to stand out more than specialists who only fit one narrow role. That makes Phoenix’s ability to retain a few specific types of players particularly important.

At the same time, rankings are not contracts, and valuation lists are not guarantees of how the market will behave. The actual free-agent market can swing based on team needs, cap timing, negotiation leverage, and how various clubs prioritize immediate roster fit over a longer-term blueprint. So while the Hollinger framework provides a useful lens for comparing value, Phoenix’s final outcome will still depend on how discussions unfold across the league.

The practical question for fans is what Phoenix does next. If the Suns act to keep Gillespie and Williams within their orbit, the team could protect its depth and continuity as it builds out the next rotation. If instead the market moves quickly, Phoenix may be forced to pivot, either by chasing a comparable alternative or reshaping the roster in a way that changes how the Suns match up against different postseason opponents. Either way, the Hollinger-backed ranking gives a clear report about the value of what Phoenix may be trying to preserve.

As the offseason ramps up, keep an eye on two things: whether Phoenix’s internal valuation targets hold firm when negotiations become concrete, and whether other teams view Gillespie and Williams as more than just bench pieces. In a summer defined by roster volatility, the Suns’ willingness and ability to keep players they already know can end up being as consequential as who they choose to sign. The next updates are likely to come as teams move from public valuation to private decisions.