We've been down this road before.
On the one hand you state that his market value is sky high, and could reasonably be beyond best Defensive player, because he is a generational talent and has no peer.
Then you turn around and lump him in with generic "starters". Every team has at least 25 starters. Does every team have 25 Aaron Donalds? ONE AD?
Decide which it is ZN. Is his leverage the same as merely a good starter? Or is he the best D player in the league and an exception to every rule as regards salary for a certain position?
The fact is that since the new CBA, there have been NO generational talent/Superstars traded during their prime, when they are still under contract, because THEY demanded it and got it. FAs? Sure. Guys past their prime and fading? Sure. 27 year old generational superstuds? No. And there's a reason for that. It's because they have no leverage. "Holding out" isn't much leverage when that cost to the team is loss of service of the player, but the cost to the player is earning a big fat ZERO. Might be more true at the QB position; but not at DT.
But you can't just stick AD in just any bushel basket of starters, or even Superstars, and for all eras, and then make a comparison.
Donald's is a very specific situation. And the Rams is a very specific situation. Rams hold a Royal Flush. Donald holds a pair of 2's.
How many teams can have a Donald hold out and then substitute for his absence with Suh?
Rams aren't the least bit concerned. They have a championship D with or without Donald; acknowledging that they indeed are better with AD than without. But this is almost like arguing the old college "who has not just an A, but the highest A". It's less about practicality and more about nuance.
