Bulls - Nets Draft Night

NYG · Post #1 » by **NYG** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:05 am

Zach Collins and 12th Overall Draft Pick for 19th Overall Draft Pick and 26th Overall Draft Pick

Bulls dump a nice chunk of salary to gain much more flexibility this off-season

The Nets consolidate picks into a late lotto pick for taking on some bad salary

Godaddycurse · Post #2 » by **Godaddycurse** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:06 am

Bulls dont really have much flexibility this offseason after re-signing giddey with or without the OP

meekrab · Post #3 » by **meekrab** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:26 am

Ridiculous, 26 isn't even enough to move from 19 to 12 let alone get a solid veteran rental with it.

ReggiesKnicks · Post #4 » by **ReggiesKnicks** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:31 am

meekrab wrote:Ridiculous, 26 isn't even enough to move from 19 to 12 let alone get a solid veteran rental with it.

Lol what?

Collins isn't a solid veteran rental.

Are you a bulls fan?

ReggiesKnicks · Post #5 » by **ReggiesKnicks** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:32 am

Seems bad for the Bulls. The Nets would probably trade all 3 1sts for #12.

ChettheJet · Post #6 » by **ChettheJet** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:36 pm

The Bulls already have 14 players under contract, if they entertain the idea of bringing Tre Jones back they have to move bodies to make room for their #12 and maybe their SRP. The Bulls won games when Vucevic was injured and Collins and Smith split time. You see Collins as a bad and yeah expiring contract, to the Nets, the Bulls are willing to play him. So the idea of adding two guaranteed contracts isn't part of any equation.

Post #7 » by **Texas Chuck** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:14 pm

similar to my question regarding Dallas at 11. I would have had your offer as reasonable, but based on feedback there and here sounds like it costs more to move up.

Still if Chicago doesn't love a player at 12, I like this idea for them--at the correct valuation. Get multiple shots at finding contributors and get more space under tax to work with. Disagree with godaddy that there isn't value here even if they don't use cap space.

wemby · Post #8 » by **wemby** » Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:22 pm

I'm guessing we're going to see a couple of moves like this one, teams with multiple picks consolidating and teams with less picks and specific needs moving back. I'd consider Zach Collins as a salary dump (given his contract, having watched him a lot as a Spurs fan) and I'd probably ask to remove 26 from the equation if they were to take the deal (that is, moving back from 12 to 19 would be the price to dump Collins) but I understand if Bulls fans feel like, in their particular situation, there's no point in dumping him now when they can play him and he expires in a season, particularly when there's not a lot to gain by doing so.

Papi_swav · Post #9 » by **Papi_swav** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 1:30 am

YESSSS from a Nets fan

pipfan · Post #10 » by **pipfan** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:41 am

Bulls like Collins-I think we'll try to move Vuc and he'll start next year. He played well for Chi
The idea I had was #12 for #19, and BRK absorbs PWill. I doubt they want to roll the dice (he's still young and has played well in the past) but that's the contract for us to try to move. We could have a lot of 2026 cap space

Post #11 » by **Texas Chuck** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 6:35 pm

pipfan wrote:Bulls like Collins-I think we'll try to move Vuc and he'll start next year. He played well for Chi
The idea I had was #12 for #19, and BRK absorbs PWill. I doubt they want to roll the dice (he's still young and has played well in the past) but that's the contract for us to try to move. We could have a lot of 2026 cap space

Can't see a team absorbing a deal that long for a player who looks this mediocre for that return. They would have to absolutely love a guy at 12 and even then I suspect they would just offer their other 1sts before taking on Williams.

Godaddycurse · Post #12 » by **Godaddycurse** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:50 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:similar to my question regarding Dallas at 11. I would have had your offer as reasonable, but based on feedback there and here sounds like it costs more to move up.

Still if Chicago doesn't love a player at 12, I like this idea for them--at the correct valuation. Get multiple shots at finding contributors and get more space under tax to work with. Disagree with godaddy that there isn't value here even if they don't use cap space.

They would end up with about MLE amount in capspace. they already have a big tpe to begin with.. i dont really see the point is all

Post #13 » by **Texas Chuck** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:08 pm

Godaddycurse wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:similar to my question regarding Dallas at 11. I would have had your offer as reasonable, but based on feedback there and here sounds like it costs more to move up.

Still if Chicago doesn't love a player at 12, I like this idea for them--at the correct valuation. Get multiple shots at finding contributors and get more space under tax to work with. Disagree with godaddy that there isn't value here even if they don't use cap space.

They would end up with about MLE amount in capspace. they already have a big tpe to begin with.. i dont really see the point is all

I mean the question is do we believe that more space under the tax line has value or it doesn't. I believe it does because it presents opportunity that not having the space doesn't present. So when I add 8 figures of space under the tax, well I am going to assign value to it.

Maybe Chicago doesn't use it well, or maybe they just pocket the cash(still very much real value, but I'll try and stay off that soapbox lol), but gaining it should have value in and of itself, no?

Godaddycurse · Post #14 » by **Godaddycurse** » Thu Apr 24, 2025 8:31 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Godaddycurse wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:similar to my question regarding Dallas at 11. I would have had your offer as reasonable, but based on feedback there and here sounds like it costs more to move up.

Still if Chicago doesn't love a player at 12, I like this idea for them--at the correct valuation. Get multiple shots at finding contributors and get more space under tax to work with. Disagree with godaddy that there isn't value here even if they don't use cap space.

They would end up with about MLE amount in capspace. they already have a big tpe to begin with.. i dont really see the point is all

I mean the question is do we believe that more space under the tax line has value or it doesn't. I believe it does because it presents opportunity that not having the space doesn't present. So when I add 8 figures of space under the tax, well I am going to assign value to it.

Maybe Chicago doesn't use it well, or maybe they just pocket the cash(still very much real value, but I'll try and stay off that soapbox lol), but gaining it should have value in and of itself, no?

yea i guess i should specify the extra space/money saved is not worth the trade off in draft capital/value. their owners may think differerently of course

Dez · Post #15 » by **Dez** » Fri Apr 25, 2025 4:54 am

Collins was solid for the Bulls, this is an easy no.

Wouldn't do it even as a salary dump, Bulls need talent and are better off picking as high as they can.

ecuhus1981 · Post #16 » by **ecuhus1981** » Sat Apr 26, 2025 11:21 am

This is the *kind* of consolidation deal the Nets are seeking. But, absorbing Zach's $18mil for next season at the same time makes this too expensive for Brooklyn IMO.

We have cornered the market on capspace this offseason, and somebody is going to value shaving $18mil off of their cap number more than CHI is here. Maybe a team in the 2nd apron is willing to sacrifice an earlier pick, for significant cap relief and a couple of our later 1sts. Who knows for certain, but I feel BRK needs to keep their powder dry and wait for a bigger haul, rather than water down their potential asset return here.

(The quiet part in all this is: we're the only team that can drive up the price for Giddey. Doing this deal would complicate or ability to do that, which I'm sure would please CHI)

Post #17 » by **jbk1234** » Sat Apr 26, 2025 1:47 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Godaddycurse wrote:
Texas Chuck wrote:similar to my question regarding Dallas at 11. I would have had your offer as reasonable, but based on feedback there and here sounds like it costs more to move up.

Still if Chicago doesn't love a player at 12, I like this idea for them--at the correct valuation. Get multiple shots at finding contributors and get more space under tax to work with. Disagree with godaddy that there isn't value here even if they don't use cap space.

They would end up with about MLE amount in capspace. they already have a big tpe to begin with.. i dont really see the point is all

I mean the question is do we believe that more space under the tax line has value or it doesn't. I believe it does because it presents opportunity that not having the space doesn't present. So when I add 8 figures of space under the tax, well I am going to assign value to it.

Maybe Chicago doesn't use it well, or maybe they just pocket the cash(still very much real value, but I'll try and stay off that soapbox lol), but gaining it should have value in and of itself, no?

Collins will be on the last year of his deal and is the only other center on the roster besides Vuc. They'd have to view a guy like Mo Wagner as a big upgrade and have some assurance he'd be open to taking an MLE from them (in a non-tampering kind of way). Even if all of those things fell into place, how much does upgrading the backup center position move the needle for the 9th seed in the East? The Bulls would have to view the draft as very flat 12-20 to do this.

I like the idea of the Nets using cap space to move up, but I don't have the Bulls as the ideal partner.

Post #18 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Apr 26, 2025 1:57 pm

IF I'm the Bulls I'm not worried at all about backup center. I would use my flexibility differently from that. We can't dismiss the value by arbitrarily saying their only option is to sign Mo Wagner, I mean what?

And I'm not even arguing if Chicago should do this or not. I am just arguing that there is intrinsic value in moving off that much salary.