RealGM

Ill offer this idea for
-Dallas looking for a starting calibre 4
-Utah looking to flip assets, in this case Collins, for more than what they did to acquire him

To Dallas
-John Collins (2 years, $51.9 million plus $26.5 million P.O.)
-Luka Samanic (1 year, $2 million)
-2029 Utah 2nd round pick
-2030 Utah 2nd round pick

To Utah
-Grant Williams (4 years, $53 million)
-Richaun Holmes (1 year, $12 million plus $13 million P.O,)
-2027 Dallas 1st round pick (lottery protected or 2028 Miami 2nd round pick)

Why?
-Collins gives Dallas more scoring in the frontcourt as they swap 2 frontcourt pieces for 2 frontcourt pieces in an effort to bolster roster by isolating their 2027 1st to be lottery protected or the Miami 2028 2nd

Doncic/Exum
Irving/Curry/Hardy
Hardaway/Green/Jones
Collins/Kleber/Propser/Morris/Samanic
Lively/Powell

-Utah acquires another 1st albeit protected for 1 year in 2027 at the expense of 2 distant 2nds. Williams can backup Markannen and Holmes can play minutes at the 5 behind Kessler leading into next season.

Sexton/Dunn
Clarkson/Tucker/George
Fontecchio/Agbaji/Sensabaugh
Markannen/Williams/Hendricks
Kessler/Olynyk/Holmes/Yurtseven

I'd absolutely do this, but I think Dallas would rather bet on Williams playing better and sub Kleber, take out the picks here, and sub in their own 2nds and/or Hardy to make it work. But this, I'd be THRILLED about this deal. I even love Grant Williams for our rotation.

Also fwiw Holmes would not have a place in our rotation. We have three centers on the active roster who are better.

There's not a universe where John Collins is worth a FRP, just just nonsensical

As a mavs fan I'm not giving up a 1st for Collins when it doesn't make us any better.

babyjax13 wrote:I'd absolutely do this, but I think Dallas would rather bet on Williams playing better and sub Kleber, take out the picks here, and sub in their own 2nds and/or Hardy to make it work. But this, I'd be THRILLED about this deal. I even love Grant Williams for our rotation.

I think Dallas would rather keep Maxi than Williams. But understand I do have a Maxi bias. But even accounting for that, I just think he's more versatile and definitely the better defensive player. Only issue is health. But if they were adding Collins, that's less of a concern because Collins doesn't really solve their issues, but he could eat minutes.

But definitely no first of any kind for John Collins. And I'm probably out at the deadline even without a first. Would rather keep the matching salary for aiming higher in the summer.

If the Mavs gave a 1st rounder for John Collins, even a protected 1st.... then Luka should be immediately asking out because theyll never be able to give him a good supporting cast. The trade is pretty fair if you just remove the picks altogether or maybe just have 1 SRP coming from the Mavs

dirkforpres wrote:If the Mavs gave a 1st rounder for John Collins, even a protected 1st.... then Luka should be immediately asking out because theyll never be able to give him a good supporting cast. The trade is pretty fair if you just remove the picks altogether or maybe just have 1 SRP coming from the Mavs

You’ve accidentally stumbled onto Ainge’s endgame.

Collins' value didn't go up just because he plays for Ainge

balsamic_ducks wrote:Collins' value didn't go up just because he plays for Ainge

TBH Dallas is moving what looks like bad money at the moment. Holmes' contract ends the same time Collins' does, and Williams' goes further into the future. I think Utah is owed incentive here (esp. because Collins is the best player in the deal). I'd love it to be a protected first, but I'm not sure that's it.

babyjax13 wrote:

balsamic_ducks wrote:Collins' value didn't go up just because he plays for Ainge

TBH Dallas is moving what looks like bad money at the moment. Holmes' contract ends the same time Collins' does, and Williams' goes further into the future. I think Utah is owed incentive here (esp. because Collins is the best player in the deal). I'd love it to be a protected first, but I'm not sure that's it.

Collins has 2 years left after this one, no?

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

balsamic_ducks wrote:Collins' value didn't go up just because he plays for Ainge

TBH Dallas is moving what looks like bad money at the moment. Holmes' contract ends the same time Collins' does, and Williams' goes further into the future. I think Utah is owed incentive here (esp. because Collins is the best player in the deal). I'd love it to be a protected first, but I'm not sure that's it.

Collins has 2 years left after this one, no?

Yes, sorry, though Holmes had one more year. So, Holmes has one less, Grant has one more. Future money is about the same but Dallas does get off a commitment a bit earlier.

babyjax13 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:TBH Dallas is moving what looks like bad money at the moment. Holmes' contract ends the same time Collins' does, and Williams' goes further into the future. I think Utah is owed incentive here (esp. because Collins is the best player in the deal). I'd love it to be a protected first, but I'm not sure that's it.

Collins has 2 years left after this one, no?

Yes, sorry, though Holmes had one more year. So, Holmes has one less, Grant has one more. Future money is about the same but Dallas does get off a commitment a bit earlier.

I think you are right btw in a Collins for Holmes/Williams that Utah is due incentive. I just don't think Dallas should pay it. Nor do I think it rises to a first, but you seem to largely agree there. I think you and I are probably pretty close on the value difference.

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
Collins has 2 years left after this one, no?

Yes, sorry, though Holmes had one more year. So, Holmes has one less, Grant has one more. Future money is about the same but Dallas does get off a commitment a bit earlier.

I think you are right btw in a Collins for Holmes/Williams that Utah is due incentive. I just don't think Dallas should pay it. Nor do I think it rises to a first, but you seem to largely agree there. I think you and I are probably pretty close on the value difference.

My view on what the deal "should" be hasn't really changed. Holmes + filler + 2nd(s)/Hardy ... maybe Prosper instead of the 2nds/Hardy, but probably not. Should Dallas do it? I see fans on this forum desperate for an upgrade, and I know that Collins isn't a sexy name, but he is a legitimate upgrade who does things Dallas needs and doesn't cost a lot. For the amount of outlay he should require, I don't really understand the lack of interest. He's about an average defender, 28 minutes of average defense with very good rebounding and some secondary rim protection will make Dallas a better defensive team. Offensively he fits like a glove. He's even been very good as a small-ball five for when Dallas wants a changeup.

Again Collins isn't an upgrade for the mavs we need defense. We can't stop a nose bleed to save our lifes. Does Collins fix that no. It makes it worse.

babyjax13 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:
Yes, sorry, though Holmes had one more year. So, Holmes has one less, Grant has one more. Future money is about the same but Dallas does get off a commitment a bit earlier.

I think you are right btw in a Collins for Holmes/Williams that Utah is due incentive. I just don't think Dallas should pay it. Nor do I think it rises to a first, but you seem to largely agree there. I think you and I are probably pretty close on the value difference.

My view on what the deal "should" be hasn't really changed. Holmes + filler + 2nd(s)/Hardy ... maybe Prosper instead of the 2nds/Hardy, but probably not. Should Dallas do it? I see fans on this forum desperate for an upgrade, and I know that Collins isn't a sexy name, but he is a legitimate upgrade who does things Dallas needs and doesn't cost a lot. For the amount of outlay he should require, I don't really understand the lack of interest. He's about an average defender, 28 minutes of average defense with very good rebounding and some secondary rim protection will make Dallas a better defensive team. Offensively he fits like a glove. He's even been very good as a small-ball five for when Dallas wants a changeup.

You are much higher on his defense than us is part of it. Part of it is this is a guy who has managed to be a huge negative on a Utah team that's barely got a negative point differential, meaning he can't be good at defense and a perfect fit on offense. And part of it is he's already been at odds with a high usage PG, well Luka's not going to give up the ball any.

You are right, in that for a desperate team he should be an option, but you also know I've been anti John Collins for years, and this year certainly is doing nothing to make a case for him.

Swish77 wrote:Again Collins isn't an upgrade for the mavs we need defense. We can't stop a nose bleed to save our lifes. Does Collins fix that no. It makes it worse.

He does not make your defense worse. He's an average defender who has some standout skills on that end (rebounding, secondary rim protection) and can switch. The impact metrics don't say he's bad on that end, the eye test doesn't say he is bad on that end, I genuinely don't get where this is coming from. He's not basketball Jesus, but he's easily a contributor to a good defense and someone who can help improve a bad one. He has a positive D-Lebron and a better than -2.0 DBPM (usually -2.0 to 0 are the guys with reputations as positive defenders). Utah played him in lineups that were terrible for him (next to several bigs), since keeping him on the floor with one other big all his impact metrics have been positive.

babyjax13 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:
Yes, sorry, though Holmes had one more year. So, Holmes has one less, Grant has one more. Future money is about the same but Dallas does get off a commitment a bit earlier.

I think you are right btw in a Collins for Holmes/Williams that Utah is due incentive. I just don't think Dallas should pay it. Nor do I think it rises to a first, but you seem to largely agree there. I think you and I are probably pretty close on the value difference.

My view on what the deal "should" be hasn't really changed. Holmes + filler + 2nd(s)/Hardy ... maybe Prosper instead of the 2nds/Hardy, but probably not. Should Dallas do it? I see fans on this forum desperate for an upgrade, and I know that Collins isn't a sexy name, but he is a legitimate upgrade who does things Dallas needs and doesn't cost a lot. For the amount of outlay he should require, I don't really understand the lack of interest. He's about an average defender, 28 minutes of average defense with very good rebounding and some secondary rim protection will make Dallas a better defensive team. Offensively he fits like a glove. He's even been very good as a small-ball five for when Dallas wants a changeup.

As A die hard mavs fan. I'm not desperate at all. Mavs fan have no idea what type of team we have bc we haven't been healthy. Why force or make a terrible move when we have no idea what type of team we have.

Texas Chuck wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
I think you are right btw in a Collins for Holmes/Williams that Utah is due incentive. I just don't think Dallas should pay it. Nor do I think it rises to a first, but you seem to largely agree there. I think you and I are probably pretty close on the value difference.

My view on what the deal "should" be hasn't really changed. Holmes + filler + 2nd(s)/Hardy ... maybe Prosper instead of the 2nds/Hardy, but probably not. Should Dallas do it? I see fans on this forum desperate for an upgrade, and I know that Collins isn't a sexy name, but he is a legitimate upgrade who does things Dallas needs and doesn't cost a lot. For the amount of outlay he should require, I don't really understand the lack of interest. He's about an average defender, 28 minutes of average defense with very good rebounding and some secondary rim protection will make Dallas a better defensive team. Offensively he fits like a glove. He's even been very good as a small-ball five for when Dallas wants a changeup.

You are much higher on his defense than us is part of it. Part of it is this is a guy who has managed to be a huge negative on a Utah team that's barely got a negative point differential, meaning he can't be good at defense and a perfect fit on offense. And part of it is he's already been at odds with a high usage PG, well Luka's not going to give up the ball any.

You are right, in that for a desperate team he should be an option, but you also know I've been anti John Collins for years, and this year certainly is doing nothing to make a case for him.

Since we quit playing him with multiple bigs his point differential has been positive. I get that looking for context is not fun, and I'm not Collins fan, either, but his impact metrics will continue to trend upward (last 18 games). You could say it is being pulled up by Utah playing better, but they are playing better in part by not trying to force lineups that won't work.

babyjax13 wrote:

Swish77 wrote:Again Collins isn't an upgrade for the mavs we need defense. We can't stop a nose bleed to save our lifes. Does Collins fix that no. It makes it worse.

He does not make your defense worse. He's an average defender who has some standout skills on that end (rebounding, secondary rim protection) and can switch. The impact metrics don't say he's bad on that end, the eye test doesn't say he is bad on that end, I genuinely don't get where this is coming from. He's not basketball Jesus, but he's easily a contributor to a good defense and someone who can help improve a bad one. He has a positive D-Lebron and a better than -2.0 DBPM (usually -2.0 to 0 are the guys with reputations as positive defenders). Utah played him in lineups that were terrible for him (next to several bigs), since keeping him on the floor with one other big all his impact metrics have been positive.

He's not a avg defender. His Defense rating is 121 defensive win share is a 0.021 both rank towards the bottom of the NBA. Yeah Ill pass again WE need defense.