RealGM

CHI trades: Zach LaVine, Lonzo Ball, Ayo Dosunmu
NOP trades: CJ McCollum, Brandon Ingram

New Orleans cuts long-term costs relative to paying CJ + Ingram and gets an elite floor spacer in LaVine. Ayo, I think, would also be really nice on their team and, in particular, as someone who can play next to Murray in some lineups, or next to Murphy/Herb in others.

Chicago gets a young player who could be part of a longer-term core than LaVine, and they just move past the situation. If Ingram doesn't work out they just let him expire and take the salary savings of CJ relative to LaVine.

This feels a first or two short from Chicago’s end. Lonzo and Lavine can’t really be trusted to be anything as an on court product.

Mamba4Goat wrote:This feels a first or two short from Chicago’s end. Lonzo and Lavine can’t really be trusted to be anything as an on court product.

2 unprotected firsts short at bare minimum. This is rancid for New Orleans.

Ingram's being valued as an actual zero here.

HornetJail wrote:Ingram's being valued as an actual zero here.

Kind of? If New Orleans doesn't think they'll bring him back, this is more maintaining a similar caliber player while making the cap more manageable than returning Ingram. LaVine's contract is really bad, but so is CJ's, and Ingram's would be, too, if he signs what he is asking for - and if he doesn't get that he has some incentive to leave New Orleans for a place where he gets a larger role and/or more money. Ayo is also just really, really good relative to contract. Once he became a starter last year (37 games) he averaged 15/3.5/4.5 on 61%TS. He will be making $7 million, but he's probably worth $15 million on the open market (around/above the MLE). So, if LaVine is overpaid by $10-12 million, and Ayo is underpaid by $8 million, I have that combination of players as relatively neutral? But then, New Orleans can't get those kinds of players if Ingram walks - so I do think there is value in that. Then there is CJ, who is also overpaid by ... IDK, $10 million per year?

I think there is value in balancing their books and getting players who fit the roster positionally and stylistically. It's not a homerun, but it doesn't look like that is available. NOP's rotation from 1-4 after this is also pretty nice:

Murray/Ayo
LaVine/Ayo/Hawkins
Jones/Murphy
Zion/Jones/JRE
???

Hawkins and filler for a center could complete it pretty nicely.

babyjax13 wrote:Kind of? If New Orleans doesn't think they'll bring him back, this is more maintaining a similar caliber player while making the cap more manageable than returning Ingram. LaVine's contract is really bad, but so is CJ's

They want to compete this season. Dumping Ingram doesn't help them. The notion that they'll sell low because he might not stay completely excises their agenda in the now.

LaVine's contract is hugely worse than CJ's. And unlike LaVine, CJ is -- despite his own flaws -- actually a team player who plays a winning game.

This is a terrible deal for the Pelicans, who would get worse in the now while also taking on one of the worst contracts in the league.

Crymson wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:Kind of? If New Orleans doesn't think they'll bring him back, this is more maintaining a similar caliber player while making the cap more manageable than returning Ingram. LaVine's contract is really bad, but so is CJ's

They want to compete this season. Dumping Ingram doesn't help them. The notion that they'll sell low because he might not stay completely excises their agenda in the now.

LaVine's contract is hugely worse than CJ's. And unlike LaVine, CJ is -- despite his own flaws -- actually a team player who plays a winning game.

This is a terrible deal for the Pelicans, who would get worse in the now while also taking on one of the worst contracts in the league.

Ingram isn't much better than LaVine, though (just a similar caliber player who is younger)...and I don't think CJ is better than Ayo.

Bulls say no. We see the finish line with the Lavine and Ball contracts. Not in any hurry to take on the burden of resigning Ingram either.

To concur, Bulls say no

They get Ingram for a year and then resign him to a Lavine sized contract. Where's the sense in changing which injury prone player they pay long term? How much does Ingram take the ball out of the hands of Patrick Williams who they just resigned? They get CJ for 2 years at more than they have to pay Ball for one and Ayo for a couple. All the OLDER than Lavine CJ does is start with Giddey which slows the development of Coby White because neither White nor CJ can play the SF like Lavine.

Look at the consequences of a trade, not just what the trade machine says is good.

ChettheJet wrote:To concur, Bulls say no

They get Ingram for a year and then resign him to a Lavine sized contract. Where's the sense in changing which injury prone player they pay long term? How much does Ingram take the ball out of the hands of Patrick Williams who they just resigned? They get CJ for 2 years at more than they have to pay Ball for one and Ayo for a couple. All the OLDER than Lavine CJ does is start with Giddey which slows the development of Coby White because neither White nor CJ can play the SF like Lavine.

Look at the consequences of a trade, not just what the trade machine says is good.

Or, they don't sign him to a Lavine-sized contract b/c no one is offering that? The worst case scenario is paying CJ McCollum for one year and losing Ayo but otherwise having your hands washed of LaVine's deal.

No thank you, just no.

This trade only helps Chicago, by getting off of Lavine's albatross deal, even at the expense of losing Ayo.

I only like this for Chicago if they let Ingram walk. He won't be worth his next contact. But even then, how much money do they even save?

I don't like it for New Orleans. Can't count on LaVine or Ball for anything.

Chuck Everett wrote:This trade only helps Chicago, by getting off of Lavine's albatross deal, even at the expense of losing Ayo.

It doesn't help Chicago at all, we give up Ayo and then get the privilege of signing Ingram to another deal worse than LaVine's.

Rather just keep LaVine.

Dez wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:This trade only helps Chicago, by getting off of Lavine's albatross deal, even at the expense of losing Ayo.

It doesn't help Chicago at all, we give up Ayo and then get the privilege of signing Ingram to another deal worse than LaVine's.

Rather just keep LaVine.

It only works for Chicago because it helps clear their cap sheet for a real rebuild. McCollum is still tradable. Obviously, I wouldn't want to lose Dosunmu, but I agree with the post above. If Chicago was trading for Ingram, it would be just for his expiring contract and to get off of Lavine's deal.

Chuck Everett wrote:

Dez wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:This trade only helps Chicago, by getting off of Lavine's albatross deal, even at the expense of losing Ayo.

It doesn't help Chicago at all, we give up Ayo and then get the privilege of signing Ingram to another deal worse than LaVine's.

Rather just keep LaVine.

It only works for Chicago because it helps clear their cap sheet for a real rebuild. McCollum is still tradable. Obviously, I wouldn't want to lose Dosunmu, but I agree with the post above. If Chicago was trading for Ingram, it would be just for his expiring contract and to get off of Lavine's deal.

If Chicago was willing to attach assets to LaVine he'd be gone already, they rightfully aren't and this is terrible for Chicago.

I like it, but both fan bases also understandably hate it.

Under the new CBA, these massive contracts for sub All-Star level players are not going to be movable.

So NO are basically trading BI and CJ for nothing. Why would they do that again? I mean the 2 meaningful guys they're trading for are a high chance of being injured for the rest of their careers and never contributing positive value again, and it's not like they're cheap, so why do this other than to help Chicago?

One_and_Done wrote:So NO are basically trading BI and CJ for nothing. Why would they do that again? I mean the 2 meaningful guys they're trading for are a high chance of being injured for the rest of their careers and never contributing positive value again, and it's not like they're cheap, so why do this other than to help Chicago?

I think LaVine ~= CJ in value (overpaid by similar amounts) and Ayo is less valuable than Ingram but not significantly so. So, we could talk how to balance it. But I really disagree that New Orleans is getting nothing, or that this is even that far off given that they can't find offers for Ingram that would let them save face in a trade. I think this does that, while making their cap more manageable than if they keep him.

babyjax13 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:So NO are basically trading BI and CJ for nothing. Why would they do that again? I mean the 2 meaningful guys they're trading for are a high chance of being injured for the rest of their careers and never contributing positive value again, and it's not like they're cheap, so why do this other than to help Chicago?

I think LaVine ~= CJ in value (overpaid by similar amounts) and Ayo is less valuable than Ingram but not significantly so. So, we could talk how to balance it. But I really disagree that New Orleans is getting nothing, or that this is even that far off given that they can't find offers for Ingram that would let them save face in a trade. I think this does that, while making their cap more manageable than if they keep him.

If Lonzo and Lavine are too hurt to ever play winning basketball, which is a real possibility, then Ayo has so little value that it might as well be nothing. Like, Ayo's not a bad player, but he's what I would call 'just a guy out there'. Nobody is making moves to try and snag Ayo.

CJ is overpaid, and a max BI would be overpaid, but CJ can still help teams, as can BI in the right setting. He's not a player I'd be trying to trade for, bit the high end use case for Ingram is an all-star player with no health concerns. I will be shocked if Lonzo ever contributes to winning again, and I don't like Lavine's chances either. Nola would be better off letting Ingram walk.