RealGM

Celtics get: Kuzma
Celtics trade: Holiday/28
Huge Tax savings – Get out of the last year of Holiday deal, plus when Tatum is ready, Kuzma expiring contract is easier to move than Holiday.

Bucks get: Holiday/Collins/Clarkson
Bucks trade: Lilliard / 2031 unprotected 1st
Bucks take on Holiday contract, get two useful pieces, trade away an unprotected 1st for Jazz taking Lillard

Jazz get: Lillard/Patrick Williams/2027 Bulls 1st and 2031 Bucks 1st
Jazz trade: Collins/Sexton/Clarkson
Get draft picks for taking on Lillard and Williams

Bulls get: Sexton
Bulls trade: Wiliams/2027 1st
Get out of williams contact

Only one I’m iffy about is the Jazz.

dont think celtics are paying 28 on top of jrue to get kuzma. they can do better than that elsewhere.

Chicago has no use for Sexton with White + GIddey + Ayo + lonzo on the roster

mlloyd10 wrote:Celtics get: Kuzma
Celtics trade: Holiday/28
Huge Tax savings – Get out of the last year of Holiday deal, plus when Tatum is ready, Kuzma expiring contract is easier to move than Holiday.

Bucks get: Holiday/Collins/Clarkson
Bucks trade: Lilliard / 2031 unprotected 1st
Bucks take on Holiday contract, get two useful pieces, trade away an unprotected 1st for Jazz taking Lillard

Jazz get: Lillard/Patrick Williams/2027 Bulls 1st and 2031 Bucks 1st
Jazz trade: Collins/Sexton/Clarkson
Get draft picks for taking on Lillard and Williams

Bulls get: Sexton
Bulls trade: Wiliams/2027 1st
Get out of williams contact

Only one I’m iffy about is the Jazz.

I can't see Utah taking on $112MM+ in salary (Lillard's possibly dead money and the nonsensical Williams contract) beyond next year for one unprotected FRP (MIL) and one encumbered FRP (CHI).

Only the Bucks consider this and I hate the Clarkson portion of this for them. It doesn't really make sense for the other teams. Boston gets bad value. Chicago shouldn't be spending assets to dump Williams right now and Utah just gets really poor value.

Texas Chuck wrote:Only the Bucks consider this and I hate the Clarkson portion of this for them. It doesn't really make sense for the other teams. Boston gets bad value. Chicago shouldn't be spending assets to dump Williams right now and Utah just gets really poor value.

Holiday contract is very negative, followed by Williams, followed by Dame.

mlloyd10 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Only the Bucks consider this and I hate the Clarkson portion of this for them. It doesn't really make sense for the other teams. Boston gets bad value. Chicago shouldn't be spending assets to dump Williams right now and Utah just gets really poor value.

Holiday contract is very negative, followed by Williams, followed by Dame.

Dame's contract is worse than Holidays.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

mlloyd10 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:Only the Bucks consider this and I hate the Clarkson portion of this for them. It doesn't really make sense for the other teams. Boston gets bad value. Chicago shouldn't be spending assets to dump Williams right now and Utah just gets really poor value.

Holiday contract is very negative, followed by Williams, followed by Dame.

Dame's contract is worse than Holidays.

So is Kuzma's which is particularly relevant since he is asking Boston to pay to trade the good player for the bad one. I mean maybe you say Boston gets desperate to save money and they would do the swap for free--I don't think they would have to take a deal this bad--but asking them to add value on the Bucks behalf? Can't see it.

Texas Chuck wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

mlloyd10 wrote:
Holiday contract is very negative, followed by Williams, followed by Dame.

Dame's contract is worse than Holidays.

So is Kuzma's which is particularly relevant since he is asking Boston to pay to trade the good player for the bad one. I mean maybe you say Boston gets desperate to save money and they would do the swap for free--I don't think they would have to take a deal this bad--but asking them to add value on the Bucks behalf? Can't see it.

A worse contract than Jrue? Uh, no. This is one of many threads where I've seen that your perception/valuation of Jrue Holiday seems to go pretty extremely against the consensus. So I'm wondering at what point are you considering this may be a blind spot for you? FWIW, I don't think the Bucks get all three of these players with Lillard's dead salary and one distant first either, but I've seen multiple variations of Jrue + asset(s) for Boston to duck below the 2nd apron and get a lesser but still maybe useful player back. This easily accomplishes that for them at a pretty meager cost (28th pick in the draft). I don't think the Jazz or Bulls do this.

Ron Swanson wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:
Dame's contract is worse than Holidays.

So is Kuzma's which is particularly relevant since he is asking Boston to pay to trade the good player for the bad one. I mean maybe you say Boston gets desperate to save money and they would do the swap for free--I don't think they would have to take a deal this bad--but asking them to add value on the Bucks behalf? Can't see it.

A worse contract than Jrue? Uh, no. This is one of many threads where I've seen that your perception/valuation of Jrue Holiday seems to go pretty extremely against the consensus. So I'm wondering at what point are you considering this may be a blind spot for you? FWIW, I don't think the Bucks get all three of these players with Lillard's dead salary and one distant first either, but I've seen multiple variations of Jrue + asset(s) for Boston to duck below the 2nd apron and get a lesser but still maybe useful player back. This easily accomplishes that for them at a pretty meager cost (28th pick in the draft). I don't think the Jazz or Bulls do this.

I might not have his value right. Totally concede that.

I feel good about the idea that a return on a Jrue trade would be better than the return on a Kuzma trade. In that we have teams that would want to add Jrue to their roster. Sure, they probably don't love the contract, but they would offset some of it by what they sent out. I'm struggling to find any team who wants to add Kuzma. Not they'd take him as matching if they got something they wanted, but would actually want him.

do you disagree with that? And so yeah I have Jrue with more value. I don't think you have seen any posts from me assigning high value to him. In fact, I think I've consistently assigned him negative value. Just less negative than Dame, less negative than Kuz, less negative than Williams, etc...

Texas Chuck wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
So is Kuzma's which is particularly relevant since he is asking Boston to pay to trade the good player for the bad one. I mean maybe you say Boston gets desperate to save money and they would do the swap for free--I don't think they would have to take a deal this bad--but asking them to add value on the Bucks behalf? Can't see it.

A worse contract than Jrue? Uh, no. This is one of many threads where I've seen that your perception/valuation of Jrue Holiday seems to go pretty extremely against the consensus. So I'm wondering at what point are you considering this may be a blind spot for you? FWIW, I don't think the Bucks get all three of these players with Lillard's dead salary and one distant first either, but I've seen multiple variations of Jrue + asset(s) for Boston to duck below the 2nd apron and get a lesser but still maybe useful player back. This easily accomplishes that for them at a pretty meager cost (28th pick in the draft). I don't think the Jazz or Bulls do this.

I might not have his value right. Totally concede that.

I feel good about the idea that a return on a Jrue trade would be better than the return on a Kuzma trade. In that we have teams that would want to add Jrue to their roster. Sure, they probably don't love the contract, but they would offset some of it by what they sent out. I'm struggling to find any team who wants to add Kuzma. Not they'd take him as matching if they got something they wanted, but would actually want him.

do you disagree with that? And so yeah I have Jrue with more value. I don't think you have seen any posts from me assigning high value to him. In fact, I think I've consistently assigned him negative value. Just less negative than Dame, less negative than Kuz, less negative than Williams, etc...

Except that's not the issue here. Boston would clearly want to shed salary in this instance and Kuzma's descending contract is uniquely valuable to any 2nd apron team in that regard. For the select few teams that would both A) have the cap security to absorb Jrue's 3-years $100+ million, and B) value him enough as a win-now asset, then yes, those teams would probably view him as more valuable to them. But it should stand to reason that Worse Player =/= Worse Contract because not every situation is identical.

If you're essentially saying that the Bucks would have to add value to turn Kuzma into Jrue Holiday, then I think most people would disagree. You're talking 2-years, $42 million remaining vs. 3-years. $100+ million and a guy who's 5-years older. The Jrue Holiday that we saw this season isn't a good enough player to overcome that difference in bad money owed.

Ron Swanson wrote:If you're essentially saying that the Bucks would have to add value to turn Kuzma into Jrue Holiday, then I think most people would disagree.

I'm not saying that at all. I said originally Boston shouldn't pay to swap the two and I stand by that. But its very unlikely a trade would be one for the other. The Bucks aren't a good fit for Jrue financially so they aren't going to be the high(even if negative) bidder so why would I anchor Jrue's value to what the Bucks shouldn't do?

But you are right. I have Jrue as more valuable, but its probably best to communicate that in a way other than saying Kuzma has a worse contract. He doesn't have a worse contract. He has a basketball issue and a personality issue. Jrue helps far more on the court even if he isn't the guy he was 4 years ago. And he's one of the best possible humans to have as part of your mix. Kuzma probably not one of the worst, but definitely not a good one. Terrible guy to have around young players you want to develop for sure. Maybe fine on a veteran team that will ignore his nonsense and keep him more in line.

The Bulls aren't anywhere near talented enough to be considering using picks to dump MLE-scale contracts.

Celtics wouldn’t be including 28. Regardless I think they can do better than Kuzma.