CHI-NOP-UTA: Ingram to Chicago

babyjax13 · Post #1 » by **babyjax13** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 8:37 pm

CHI trades: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, Chris Duarte, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$53 million)
in: Brandon Ingram, Jordan Clarkson (~$50 million)
Chicago gets a youngish all-star adjacent player for pretty minimal outlay.

NOP trades: Brandon Ingram ($36 million)
in: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Chris Duarte, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$35 million)
New Orleans turns a position of weakness into one where they have flexibility to play a traditional center or a floor-spacing center. I think their center rotation would be decidedly average after this, which is a big improvement.

UTA trades: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Jordan Clarkson, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$43 million)
in: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$48 million)
Utah reduces some future salary commitments and gets a defensive guard who could be a long-term fit as a rotation player in Ayo. They'd probably have the worst defense in NBA history with Vucevic starting at center which should hopefully lead to a bad team that is fun to watch because they score a ton?

lordjeff05 · Post #2 » by **lordjeff05** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:42 pm

babyjax13 wrote:CHI trades: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, Chris Duarte, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$53 million)
in: Brandon Ingram, Jordan Clarkson (~$50 million)
Chicago gets a youngish all-star adjacent player for pretty minimal outlay.

NOP trades: Brandon Ingram ($36 million)
in: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Chris Duarte, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$35 million)
New Orleans turns a position of weakness into one where they have flexibility to play a traditional center or a floor-spacing center. I think their center rotation would be decidedly average after this, which is a big improvement.

UTA trades: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Jordan Clarkson, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$43 million)
in: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$48 million)
Utah reduces some future salary commitments and gets a defensive guard who could be a long-term fit as a rotation player in Ayo. They'd probably have the worst defense in NBA history with Vucevic starting at center which should hopefully lead to a bad team that is fun to watch because they score a ton?

Pels fan here and yeah I would def do this.

ChettheJet · Post #3 » by **ChettheJet** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:46 pm

You leave the Bulls with Smith as their starting and ONLY center

they only get Ingram for one year. And they ignore that Brandon is one injury prone forward. They end up putting the newly resigned for 5y, $90M Patrick Williams to come off the bench, thus stunting and delaying his growth. Or are you making the Bulls hoping to trade Zach Lavine and, who do they get in return?

They still end up starting Zach Lavine at the SF, with Josh Giddey and Coby White at guard so Clarkson backs them. Unless they play Williams more off the bench t the 3/4, with Lavine playing some at the SG and taking minutes from Clarkson.

The Bulls end up with a very much more veteran team than they had when the had DeRozan as they give up Dosunmu and Ball.

Fail.

Eliminate NOP and let the JAZZ skip giving up the pick forget the PORT pick and take the same haul from the Bulls in exchange for Kessler, Collins and Clarkson

they end up with

Collins Craig Phillips
Lavine Williams Buzelis
Smith Kessler
White Lavine Duarte THT
Giddey Clarkson White Carter

giberish · Post #4 » by **giberish** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:05 pm

IMO the value looks good for Chicago but the resulting roster is VERY small. As noted Smith is the only center and they don't have a big PF to cover (it's already a problem with Vuc). I assume they'd start Williams at PF and bring White or Giddey off the bench with Clarkson as the 5th option between PG/SG/SF - at least until a LaVine trade. Still a lot of offense-first (if not offense-only) guys around the perimeter (Caruso and Ayo were their defenders) with a very small/thin PF/C.

It almost needs a LaVine deal where they're getting at least some filler PF/C depth for the Bulls.

The good news is that the cost is cheap enough for Chicago that they shouldn't feel that they absolutely have to resign Ingram. Make a reasonable contract offer but they haven't lost much if he leaves so they don't have to go full 30% max if he's not that good.

babyjax13 · Post #5 » by **babyjax13** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:19 pm

giberish wrote:IMO the value looks good for Chicago but the resulting roster is VERY small. As noted Smith is the only center and they don't have a big PF to cover (it's already a problem with Vuc). I assume they'd start Williams at PF and bring White or Giddey off the bench with Clarkson as the 5th option between PG/SG/SF - at least until a LaVine trade. Still a lot of offense-first (if not offense-only) guys around the perimeter (Caruso and Ayo were their defenders) with a very small/thin PF/C.

It almost needs a LaVine deal where they're getting at least some filler PF/C depth for the Bulls.

The good news is that the cost is cheap enough for Chicago that they shouldn't feel that they absolutely have to resign Ingram. Make a reasonable contract offer but they haven't lost much if he leaves so they don't have to go full 30% max if he's not that good.

Frankly, I'm not sure why Chicago would be concerned by peripheral pieces. If this trade helps them to establish a good core - while also receiving a lottery pick in this draft - that's a win. White/Giddey/Ingram/Buzelis has some interesting upside, and they have another good piece in PWill. I anticipate they'd start the season with White/LaVine/Ingram/Giddey/Smith as starters, and they'd stay a lottery team because of their lack of quality center depth. In that case, this is good, they need to lose games but they also need to flip guys that aren't in their long-term plans for players who might be. That's the goal here - even if they decide to let Ingram walk or to see if they can flip him at the deadline (and fail) the outlay is pretty minimal and cleans up their books dramatically. If Ingram works then they've added a very good young player without giving up a core piece.

babyjax13 · Post #6 » by **babyjax13** » Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:21 pm

ChettheJet wrote:You leave the Bulls with Smith as their starting and ONLY center

they only get Ingram for one year. And they ignore that Brandon is one injury prone forward. They end up putting the newly resigned for 5y, $90M Patrick Williams to come off the bench, thus stunting and delaying his growth. Or are you making the Bulls hoping to trade Zach Lavine and, who do they get in return?

They still end up starting Zach Lavine at the SF, with Josh Giddey and Coby White at guard so Clarkson backs them. Unless they play Williams more off the bench t the 3/4, with Lavine playing some at the SG and taking minutes from Clarkson.

The Bulls end up with a very much more veteran team than they had when the had DeRozan as they give up Dosunmu and Ball.

Fail.

Eliminate NOP and let the JAZZ skip giving up the pick forget the PORT pick and take the same haul from the Bulls in exchange for Kessler, Collins and Clarkson

they end up with

Collins Craig Phillips
Lavine Williams Buzelis
Smith Kessler
White Lavine Duarte THT
Giddey Clarkson White Carter

I'd be fine with that, but I think Chicago needs to find ways to add core pieces with high upside. I like Kessler, but his upside isn't as good as Ingram, and having a fundamentally flawed team that will be in the lotto is right where Chicago should be at this moment (IMO). So, who cares if they are small at center? Just sign a gleague guy to backfill the rotation and lose 50 games because you can't play defense.

Post #7 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:47 am

Take Kessler out and I'm game. Otherwise I'd just suggest that NO and CHI cut utah out.

babyjax13 · Post #8 » by **babyjax13** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:58 am

jazzfan1971 wrote:Take Kessler out and I'm game. Otherwise I'd just suggest that NO and CHI cut utah out.

I mean, it would be crazy for Utah to be able to get this deal without Kessler. This is obviously under the presumption that we want to move Kessler, and it seems clear that we do.

Post #9 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:47 am

babyjax13 wrote:
jazzfan1971 wrote:Take Kessler out and I'm game. Otherwise I'd just suggest that NO and CHI cut utah out.

I mean, it would be crazy for Utah to be able to get this deal without Kessler. This is obviously under the presumption that we want to move Kessler, and it seems clear that we do.

IF we move him it will be for assets, not to dump some salary that really isn't a problem. But, I don't think we want to move him any more than we wented to move Markannen. We are just listening to offers. Ainge does this all the time.

babyjax13 · Post #10 » by **babyjax13** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:55 am

jazzfan1971 wrote:
babyjax13 wrote:
jazzfan1971 wrote:Take Kessler out and I'm game. Otherwise I'd just suggest that NO and CHI cut utah out.

I mean, it would be crazy for Utah to be able to get this deal without Kessler. This is obviously under the presumption that we want to move Kessler, and it seems clear that we do.

IF we move him it will be for assets, not to dump some salary that really isn't a problem. But, I don't think we want to move him any more than we wented to move Markannen. We are just listening to offers. Ainge does this all the time.

You ever watch Ayo Dosunmu play? Because he's a very good player...

Post #11 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:28 am

I don't recall watching him, no. His stats look ok, but I looked him on on LEBRON and he's ranked #459. Kessler #117 for comparison.

If you like him as a project so be it. I prefer Kessler by a lot.

babyjax13 · Post #12 » by **babyjax13** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:52 am

jazzfan1971 wrote:I don't recall watching him, no. His stats look ok, but I looked him on on LEBRON and he's ranked #459. Kessler #117 for comparison.

If you like him as a project so be it. I prefer Kessler by a lot.

After becoming a starter in 37 games last year he averaged 15/4/5. Advanced metrics favor centers really heavily, and I suspect Kessler's impact is a bit inflated since our only competent defense comes with him since he's the only traditional 5 on the roster. There's lots of contextual stuff here. Ayo is very good.

SkyHook · Post #13 » by **SkyHook** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 5:09 am

babyjax13 wrote:CHI trades: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, Chris Duarte, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$53 million)
in: Brandon Ingram, Jordan Clarkson (~$50 million)
Chicago gets a youngish all-star adjacent player for pretty minimal outlay.

NOP trades: Brandon Ingram ($36 million)
in: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Chris Duarte, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$35 million)
New Orleans turns a position of weakness into one where they have flexibility to play a traditional center or a floor-spacing center. I think their center rotation would be decidedly average after this, which is a big improvement.

UTA trades: Walker Kessler, John Collins, Jordan Clarkson, 2025 CLE/UTA/MIN 1st (worst) (~$43 million)
in: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$48 million)
Utah reduces some future salary commitments and gets a defensive guard who could be a long-term fit as a rotation player in Ayo. They'd probably have the worst defense in NBA history with Vucevic starting at center which should hopefully lead to a bad team that is fun to watch because they score a ton?

If the Jazz are looking to tank this season —which they should—then this trade helps (thought I'm not sold that they need to get significantly worse). The inclusion of Vucevic kills the deal for me though. He's in the same EPM tier as John Collins (personally I prefer Collins by a healthy margin). his contract is better than John's, but not significantly enough to move the needle for a major acquisition.

I'd pass, but it's a good effort.

Post #14 » by **Mavrelous** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 3:11 pm

CHI owes UTA a 1st...

babyjax13 · Post #15 » by **babyjax13** » Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:17 pm

Mavrelous wrote:CHI owes UTA a 1st...

I don't really think they do tbh. I think Ayo and Kessler are similar in value with a slight edge to Kessler, Vucevic and Collins are similar in value (I'd give the edge to Vuc for less money, but Collins is more useful), and a clear edge to Ball for expiring. It saves us some money in 25-26 ($29 million in salaries vs. $46 million), so I think the cost of swapping a late first now for what will either be a mid first or an earlyish second in the future makes sense.

Post #16 » by **Mavrelous** » Sun Sep 22, 2024 6:16 am

babyjax13 wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:CHI owes UTA a 1st...

I don't really think they do tbh. I think Ayo and Kessler are similar in value with a slight edge to Kessler, Vucevic and Collins are similar in value (I'd give the edge to Vuc for less money, but Collins is more useful), and a clear edge to Ball for expiring. It saves us some money in 25-26 ($29 million in salaries vs. $46 million), so I think the cost of swapping a late first now for what will either be a mid first or an earlyish second in the future makes sense.

CHI trades: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, Chris Duarte, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$53 million)
in: Brandon Ingram, Jordan Clarkson (~$50 million)
Chicago gets a youngish all-star adjacent player for pretty minimal outlay.

Vuc and Clarkson are equal IMO, just turning Ball and Duarte (practically dead money) to a useful player costs POR 1st, to turn them to all star costs more, even one at depressed value like Ingram, Ayo is not the gap, Bulls owe value here.

toooskies · Post #17 » by **toooskies** » Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:43 pm

The Pels don't need Missi AND Kessler, so that's a spot where either Missi can go to the Bulls as their backup big or Kessler can be rerouted to Chicago. Depends on how much they like Missi in the short time they've had him.

babyjax13 · Post #18 » by **babyjax13** » Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:00 am

Mavrelous wrote:
babyjax13 wrote:
Mavrelous wrote:CHI owes UTA a 1st...

I don't really think they do tbh. I think Ayo and Kessler are similar in value with a slight edge to Kessler, Vucevic and Collins are similar in value (I'd give the edge to Vuc for less money, but Collins is more useful), and a clear edge to Ball for expiring. It saves us some money in 25-26 ($29 million in salaries vs. $46 million), so I think the cost of swapping a late first now for what will either be a mid first or an earlyish second in the future makes sense.

CHI trades: Lonzo Ball, Nikola Vucevic, Ayo Dosunmu, Chris Duarte, 2025 POR 1st (1-14 thru 2028, otherwise 2028 2nd) (~$53 million)
in: Brandon Ingram, Jordan Clarkson (~$50 million)
Chicago gets a youngish all-star adjacent player for pretty minimal outlay.

Vuc and Clarkson are equal IMO, just turning Ball and Duarte (practically dead money) to a useful player costs POR 1st, to turn them to all star costs more, even one at depressed value like Ingram, Ayo is not the gap, Bulls owe value here.

I think Ayo is the gap, frankly. Ingram is expiring and seeking a contract that no team wants to pay him. That means he's likely going to whoever will pay the most. Obviously an incumbent's advantage is in what they can pay, but how much are you willing to pay relative to other teams? New Orleans' job here is to recoup any assets they can if he's not in their long-term plans - and frankly if he is, then David Griffin is a worse GM than he has already proven to be.

letsgobulls23 · Post #19 » by **letsgobulls23** » Mon Sep 23, 2024 2:59 am

As mentioned, I don't like where this leaves CHI. Trading for Ingram would mean that CHI has intentions of being good, correct? How does that happen with Jalen Smith as the only big on the team? Not to mention, I would not want to be the team stuck paying Ingram.

I'd pass from CHI perspective.

babyjax13 · Post #20 » by **babyjax13** » Mon Sep 23, 2024 4:48 am

letsgobulls23 wrote:As mentioned, I don't like where this leaves CHI. Trading for Ingram would mean that CHI has intentions of being good, correct? How does that happen with Jalen Smith as the only big on the team? Not to mention, I would not want to be the team stuck paying Ingram.

I'd pass from CHI perspective.

I don't think it signals that at all. I think it signals that they are being opportunistic about targeting a young, potential core piece. Being bad while adding him would be a huge boon given where Chicago is. Start Smith, sign a gleague center, give up a million points a game and figure put which guys are keepers. Obviously try to trade LaVine.