RealGM

HOU trades: Dillon Brooks, Jock Londale, Tari Eason
in: Brandon Ingram
So, I don't LOVE this for Houston, but I think they are a team with too many players who need minutes and a flier on Ingram is pretty low-risk because even if they decide to let him walk they'll be able to fill the rotation with interesting young players. If he works, that is awesome, he gives them another scoring threat and I think that could help them some (b/c of his individual creation). I know Houston fans love Tari and I do, too. But he's competing with Whitmore/Ausar/Green/Smith for minutes. Here Houston clarifies their rotation a bit (sending out about 60 minutes, bringing back 32, opening up more room for Ausar and Whitmore to play). Maybe this should be Whitmore and not Eason?

NOP trades: Brandon Ingram
in: Dillon Brooks, Jock Londale, Walker Kessler
New Orleans gets a starting caliber center + a 3+D wing that can take some of Ingram's minutes while leaving others open for Murphy/Jones/Hawkins.

UTA trades: Walker Kessler
in: Tari Eason
Utah gets a wing prospect.

I like it.

I don’t like Ingram much but if HOU does and thinks he could make them a contender maybe this makes sense.

As a Rockets’ fan, I’d prefer to move Whitmore than Eason. Tari is an elite defensive player and could start at either small forward over Brooks or power forward if Jabari Smith Jr. plateaus. I also think the Jazz would want more than Eason for Walker Kessler.

davidv2001 wrote:As a Rockets’ fan, I’d prefer to move Whitmore than Eason. Tari is an elite defensive player and could start at either small forward over Brooks or power forward if Jabari Smith Jr. plateaus. I also think the Jazz would want more than Eason for Walker Kessler.

I'd be fine with Whitmore. You might be right re: Jazz, I'm not sure. They've been saying two first round picks, and my opinion is that a good prospect that has shown they can play in the NBA or at least shown really excellent flashes is worth an abstract "two firsts" (recognizing that not all picks are equal!).

Eason isn't available, nor Whitmore in an Ingram package.

Swap him for a lottery protected first in 2025 for an Ingram Rental.

Really nice deal value wise. Ingram has probably more value as a player but his contract situation makes him far less valuable.
Thing that bothers me is, why would Rockets do this since they have too much scorers and ball dominant players already. If they put Ingram next to Green/Sengun/VanVleet/Smith it will be too many mouths to feed i think.
As a Pels fan i would do this, but i have spent years in Ingram hater club.
Anyway, nice job.

Mrakar wrote:Really nice deal value wise. Ingram has probably more value as a player but his contract situation makes him far less valuable.
Thing that bothers me is, why would Rockets do this since they have too much scorers and ball dominant players already. If they put Ingram next to Green/Sengun/VanVleet/Smith it will be too many mouths to feed i think.
As a Pels fan i would do this, but i have spent years in Ingram hater club.
Anyway, nice job.

Brooks took about 11 shots a game last year and Eason/Whitmore both took about 8-9 when they played. I agree that it might result in "too many cooks in the kitchen," but I think it can make sense. If it doesn't, IMO it is fairly low-risk, but I would definitely respect not considering this trade for that reason, or b/c of a preference for a particular prospect (I'm agnostic about Eason/Whitmore, so I'd take either one in this deal).

I haven't watched enough Houston to know the value here, but directionally it's one of the more interesting Ingram ideas I've seen. Good work.

I don't think Ingram is getting traded until Murray comes back at the earliest (possibly Murray and Murphy need to be back). I feel the same about CJ. Win-now teams don't make lose-now trades.

As far as the specific package, Eason more value than Kessler which makes me think the Jazz would have to add value. Landale is negative. Brooks is maybe nuetral although I'm skeptical that he's viewed that way by actual front offices. The Pelicans get stuck with both of them here.

Whatever value Brooks adds is negated by the fact that Pels have Herb Jones and Murphy which is why they're open to moving Ingram. I think a better landing spot for him is the Lakers so they can actually throw a wing defender with size at opponents in the postseason.

jbk1234 wrote:I don't think Ingram is getting traded until Murray comes back at the earliest (possibly Murray and Murphy need to be back). I feel the same about CJ. Win-now teams don't make lose-now trades.

As far as the specific package, Eason more value than Kessler which makes me think the Jazz would have to add value. Landale is negative. Brooks is maybe nuetral although I'm skeptical that he's viewed that way by actual front offices. The Pelicans get stuck with both of them here.

Whatever value Brooks adds is negated by the fact that Pels have Herb Jones and Murphy which is why they're open to moving Ingram. I think a better landing spot for him is the Lakers so they can actually throw a wing defender with size at opponents in the postseason.

TBH I don't see the bolded. Kessler is a starting center in the league and Eason - thus far - has been a deepish backup where the competition is Dillon Brooks and Jabari Smith (who I like). That said, he's a more valuable archetype and clearly deserving of minutes, so I don't have the value far off.

Houston might be a good landing spot for Ingram, but I don't expect that the Pels are likely to make a big move in the immediate future. Maybe something post 12/15 or closer to the deadline.

I'm disinclined to move on from Kessler, though he and Eason were probably close in value based on last season.

This deal makes no sense for the jazz. We trade a good young center who we don't have a replacement for and receive a player in Eason who I like but is also very similar to Hendricks.

sip wrote:This deal makes no sense for the jazz. We trade a good young center who we don't have a replacement for and receive a player in Eason who I like but is also very similar to Hendricks.

I think Hendricks' best position is probably center, but also, there is no better way to lose a ton of games than having no defense at the center position. Our team as constructed has a bleak future, I'd rather collect an asset for Kessler and tank the hell out of the season.

babyjax13 wrote:TBH I don't see the bolded. Kessler is a starting center in the league and Eason - thus far - has been a deepish backup where the competition is Dillon Brooks and Jabari Smith (who I like). That said, he's a more valuable archetype and clearly deserving of minutes, so I don't have the value far off.

Kessler isn´t a starting center except maybe for the worst teams in the league. I´d say he's a low end starting center / high end backup center, and those are much easier to come by than good wings which Eason has the potential to be (he spent most of last year injured). Certainly Kessler wouldn't start on the Rockets, and Eason wouldn't come off the bench for the Jazz either, so you can't ignore the context here. As a neutral fan, I'd rather have Eason.

babyjax13 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I don't think Ingram is getting traded until Murray comes back at the earliest (possibly Murray and Murphy need to be back). I feel the same about CJ. Win-now teams don't make lose-now trades.

As far as the specific package, Eason more value than Kessler which makes me think the Jazz would have to add value. Landale is negative. Brooks is maybe nuetral although I'm skeptical that he's viewed that way by actual front offices. The Pelicans get stuck with both of them here.

Whatever value Brooks adds is negated by the fact that Pels have Herb Jones and Murphy which is why they're open to moving Ingram. I think a better landing spot for him is the Lakers so they can actually throw a wing defender with size at opponents in the postseason.

TBH I don't see the bolded. Kessler is a starting center in the league and Eason - thus far - has been a deepish backup where the competition is Dillon Brooks and Jabari Smith (who I like). That said, he's a more valuable archetype and clearly deserving of minutes, so I don't have the value far off.

Is he?

He hasn't started even half of the games he's played in and regressed from his rookie to sophomore years. If you're arguing this on a technical level given he's started both games this season, sure, but I watched a lot of players start for the Wolves over the years that weren't worthy of being called "starters".

I like the overall idea of getting Kessler back as the main piece in an Ingram trade. I do wonder how Missi's surprising start will impact the Pels' need for a Center. Missi has looked really good so far, much more game ready than his 'raw' label expectations for him. So how much better is Kessler than Missi to make it worth it?

Brooks may have value to some teams, but don't see the great fit for the Pels. How much better is he than JeVonte Green on his minimum contract? And Brooks long term deal isn't easily re-tradeable for value.

I personally would consider a deal like this, but I don't see Griffin stregnthening a division rival while taking a neutral to negative trade return for Ingram.

The Rockets would not include any of the young core players in a trade for Ingram.
NOLA would have to give up something to the Jazz if they want Kessler.
The Rockets are not paying for him to go to NOLA.

[quote="Kiss of Death"]The Rockets would not include any of the young core players in a trade for Ingram.
NOLA would have to give up something to the Jazz if they want Kessler.
The Rockets are not paying for him to go to NOLA.[/quote]

Exactly.
Houston is going to give Jalen a month. Then, they look at what they need.

babyjax13 wrote:

jbk1234 wrote:I don't think Ingram is getting traded until Murray comes back at the earliest (possibly Murray and Murphy need to be back). I feel the same about CJ. Win-now teams don't make lose-now trades.

As far as the specific package, Eason more value than Kessler which makes me think the Jazz would have to add value. Landale is negative. Brooks is maybe nuetral although I'm skeptical that he's viewed that way by actual front offices. The Pelicans get stuck with both of them here.

Whatever value Brooks adds is negated by the fact that Pels have Herb Jones and Murphy which is why they're open to moving Ingram. I think a better landing spot for him is the Lakers so they can actually throw a wing defender with size at opponents in the postseason.

TBH I don't see the bolded. Kessler is a starting center in the league and Eason - thus far - has been a deepish backup where the competition is Dillon Brooks and Jabari Smith (who I like). That said, he's a more valuable archetype and clearly deserving of minutes, so I don't have the value far off.

I think a good deal of Kessler's value is wrapped up in his rookie contract. That's at its apex when you're talking about trading him to tax team that's contending. It's at its nadir when you're talking about exchanging him for another prospect on a rookie contract. While I agree that this board tends to get out a little over its skis on Eason, I think at least part of the reason he comes off the bench is that the Rockets don't want to crater the trade value for Brooks or Smith by moving them to the bench.

Ingram to the Lakers
Kessler to the Pels
Lakers flotsam to Pels plus protection removed from 27 owed Laker 1st to Utah

That would be the skeleton of it, then add salaries around to make the money work.