RealGM

Chicago gets: John Collins
Utah gets: Lonzo Ball, Dalen Terry

Why for Chicago: Turn one probably retired player and one non-player into a guy who can... technically play minutes and can score for a team desperately not trying to tank for some reason.

Why for Utah: Clear out the center position to hopefully restore Walker Kessler's confidence and clear out one year of cap space.

How many seconds do the Jazz need to give up in this situation?

How do we know Chicago isn't trying to tank in 2024-2025?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is this off-season where Chicago restarts as the 2025 Draft is loaded at the top. Move on from Demar, trade Caruso, trade LaVine in the 1st month of the season after he plays and shows he is healthy.

I saw Ball and team CH and was about to scream how is this remotely fair? But thats what happens when you don't read thoroughly.

Colbinii wrote:How do we know Chicago isn't trying to tank in 2024-2025?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is this off-season where Chicago restarts as the 2025 Draft is loaded at the top. Move on from Demar, trade Caruso, trade LaVine in the 1st month of the season after he plays and shows he is healthy.

I mean, yes, they would not do this if they're trying to tank. I'm just operating under the assumption that they still want to go for the play-in for some reason.

Colbinii wrote:How do we know Chicago isn't trying to tank in 2024-2025?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is this off-season where Chicago restarts as the 2025 Draft is loaded at the top. Move on from Demar, trade Caruso, trade LaVine in the 1st month of the season after he plays and shows he is healthy.

all reports indicate that they want to extend Demar...isn't that a clue?

Mike lorenzo wrote:

Colbinii wrote:How do we know Chicago isn't trying to tank in 2024-2025?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is this off-season where Chicago restarts as the 2025 Draft is loaded at the top. Move on from Demar, trade Caruso, trade LaVine in the 1st month of the season after he plays and shows he is healthy.

all reports indicate that they want to extend Demar...isn't that a clue?

No, it could mean anything.

I am the one who is looking for John Collins in CHI. The trade sinks because I just don't see UT taking on the $20M of Lonzo Ball, actually hoping he's done. Just imagine if UT comes out of the box next year hot and thinks they've put a team together but could use that one guy to push them into the play in. Oops no cap space, we've got Lonzo rehab.

I sure don't see the Bulls tanking next year after getting to the play in this year. But there's a dollar figure for them to bring back DeRozan and they aren't going to exceed that for more play in years. They've got the Lavine question mark, when he comes back healthy they have to move Dosunmu to the bench and nobody behind them and White get many minutes. They still need to make a decision on Patrick Williams. They don't want to pay him the qualifying offer to just come off the bench, wither sign him to a new contract and start him or move on.

Ideally the Bulls can move DeRozan and end up with Collins, how I don't know unless UT really thinks Demar elevates their chances.

Then there's the actual possibility that Lonzo Ball comes back. He may not start but there are plenty of minutes for him at the 1, 2 or 3 off the bench

Maybe pick 31?

Is Terry in just for salary matching?

Disappointing young player probably valued higher by Chicago than Utah.

As is, I think an early 2nd or just two seconds are fine.

Even if Chicago is starting a rebuild, Collins is proving again that he helps in that category ..

But if Lonzo is actually projected to come back, you have to see it through with him and there’s really no deal to be had.

babyjax13 wrote:Maybe pick 31?

We're not giving up picks. This deal is neutral to slightly benefiting the Bulls. Lonzo will likely never play again, at least Collins will play for the Bulls.

To what end? If it’s just for the scenario proposed here and it’s not freeing cap space for additional talent acquisition, then I just don’t see the point. Spending an asset to (partially in this case) clear a contract that a team MAY regret is something for which the previous Jazz regime was rightly criticized.

WinterSoldier wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:Maybe pick 31?

We're not giving up picks. This deal is neutral to slightly benefiting the Bulls. Lonzo will likely never play again, at least Collins will play for the Bulls.

Lonzo is expiring, getting out of 25 million of John Collins the next season is going to require compensation.

SkyHook wrote:To what end? If it’s just for the scenario proposed here and it’s not freeing cap space for additional talent acquisition, then I just don’t see the point. Spending an asset to (partially in this case) clear a contract that a team MAY regret is something for which the previous Jazz regime was rightly criticized.

Can the Jazz just cut Lonzo after the trade? I agree we shouldn't trade if we have to use an asset. The only benefit is letting Collins go to a possible playoff team as we clearly are not going to be good for a few years.

SkyHook wrote:To what end? If it’s just for the scenario proposed here and it’s not freeing cap space for additional talent acquisition, then I just don’t see the point. Spending an asset to (partially in this case) clear a contract that a team MAY regret is something for which the previous Jazz regime was rightly criticized.

The last regime also didn't accumulate assets, so there was two sides to the problem. If we can open up minutes for Hendricks and Kessler while still having two firsts in this draft I think it is worth it. Collins is fine, he can contribute to a team, but he's really not needed here and our rotation is cluttered with big forwards and combo guards.

I don’t see why either team would really do this. Regardless Utah doesn’t need to give up picks and maybe get some actually. Collins is a playable rotation guy. What Chicago is sending is just dead salary. I guess if Utah really wanted to get way from Collins contract then maybe, my guess is Ainge would keep it for salary ballast for a big move.

So some of you want the jazz to give up a pick for the honor of giving the bulls a likely 18pt and 10rb a game big? Not happening.

Colbinii wrote:How do we know Chicago isn't trying to tank in 2024-2025?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is this off-season where Chicago restarts as the 2025 Draft is loaded at the top. Move on from Demar, trade Caruso, trade LaVine in the 1st month of the season after he plays and shows he is healthy.

Every indication from the front office shows they do not want to tank. Not trading Caruso at the deadline, not trading Drummond at the deadline, mutual interest for both sides in Derozan returning. Every time they've been asked about the direction of the team, they've said they want to remain competitive. Things can change and I hope they do, but all indications point towards the Bulls running it back next season.

babyjax13 wrote:

SkyHook wrote:To what end? If it’s just for the scenario proposed here and it’s not freeing cap space for additional talent acquisition, then I just don’t see the point. Spending an asset to (partially in this case) clear a contract that a team MAY regret is something for which the previous Jazz regime was rightly criticized.

The last regime also didn't accumulate assets, so there was two sides to the problem. If we can open up minutes for Hendricks and Kessler while still having two firsts in this draft I think it is worth it. Collins is fine, he can contribute to a team, but he's really not needed here and our rotation is cluttered with big forwards and combo guards.

I wouldn’t say that the roster is “cluttered” with playable 4/5s (undersized combo guards, yes).

I like Collins and think that he could still have value to Utah in a lesser reserve role, but I wouldn’t be opposed to moving him in the right deal with appropriate incentive. I’m off of the bandwagon that he should return an asset—one of the many times I’ve been wrong—but taking on dead money and giving assets? I’m still opposed. Now if it’s a virtual certainty that Lonzo has played his last game and the league is likely to determine that his contract can come off the books (without any claim of trade related cap circumvention), then it becomes a conversation (imo).

SkyHook wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

SkyHook wrote:To what end? If it’s just for the scenario proposed here and it’s not freeing cap space for additional talent acquisition, then I just don’t see the point. Spending an asset to (partially in this case) clear a contract that a team MAY regret is something for which the previous Jazz regime was rightly criticized.

The last regime also didn't accumulate assets, so there was two sides to the problem. If we can open up minutes for Hendricks and Kessler while still having two firsts in this draft I think it is worth it. Collins is fine, he can contribute to a team, but he's really not needed here and our rotation is cluttered with big forwards and combo guards.

I wouldn’t say that the roster is “cluttered” with playable 4/5s (undersized combo guards, yes).

I like Collins and think that he could still have value to Utah in a lesser reserve role, but I wouldn’t be opposed to moving him in the right deal with appropriate incentive. I’m off of the bandwagon that he should return an asset—one of the many times I’ve been wrong—but taking on dead money and giving assets? I’m still opposed. Now if it’s a virtual certainty that Lonzo has played his last game and the league is likely to determine that his contract can come off the books (without any claim of trade related cap circumvention), then it becomes a conversation (imo).

Understandable. I disagree, I don't think we need three rookies from a bad draft and between Lauri/Hendricks the 4 spot is covered, and between Kessler/Yurtseven the 5 spot is covered. Then you have whoever we draft (hopefully wings) and Sensabaugh needing minutes next year probably at the 3. Without Collins I see our existing forward rotation being something like:

Kessler 26/Yurtseven 18/3rd stringer
Lauri 20/Hendrick 28
???/Sensabaugh 18/Lauri 12

Sure, there can be minutes for Collins, but really not if we draft a forward, or not if we hope to get the most out of him. If we keep him then we'd just do a time-share between he and Kessler at center, and that seems like a waste, because we shouldn't play Collins at the 4 as long as we need minutes for the young guys and Lauri, IMO.

babyjax13 wrote:

SkyHook wrote:
I wouldn’t say that the roster is “cluttered” with playable 4/5s (undersized combo guards, yes).

I like Collins and think that he could still have value to Utah in a lesser reserve role, but I wouldn’t be opposed to moving him in the right deal with appropriate incentive. I’m off of the bandwagon that he should return an asset—one of the many times I’ve been wrong—but taking on dead money and giving assets? I’m still opposed. Now if it’s a virtual certainty that Lonzo has played his last game and the league is likely to determine that his contract can come off the books (without any claim of trade related cap circumvention), then it becomes a conversation (imo).

Understandable. I disagree, I don't think we need three rookies from a bad draft and between Lauri/Hendricks the 4 spot is covered, and between Kessler/Yurtseven the 5 spot is covered. Then you have whoever we draft (hopefully wings) and Sensabaugh needing minutes next year probably at the 3. Without Collins I see our existing forward rotation being something like:

Kessler 26/Yurtseven 18/3rd stringer
Lauri 20/Hendrick 28
???/Sensabaugh 18/Lauri 12

Sure, there can be minutes for Collins, but really not if we draft a forward, or not if we hope to get the most out of him. If we keep him then we'd just do a time-share between he and Kessler at center, and that seems like a waste, because we shouldn't play Collins at the 4 as long as we need minutes for the young guys and Lauri, IMO.

Fair enough. I’m envisioning (hoping for) Lauri, Taylor, and Walker as the 28-33 min starting 3+4+5 with some combination of Bryce, John, and Omer as the 15-20 min principal backups.

Agreed about not needing 3 rookies in this class. Draft at 9/10 (if not jumped and conveyed to OKC). 27+31 are limited assets: consolidate to move up a few spots or move for future picks (to a tax team needing to fill out a roster cheaply this season).