Jazz-Mavs Trade Proposal

SoCalJazzFan · Post #1 » by **SoCalJazzFan** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 10:14 pm

Jazz in- Collison and Dahantay Jones
Mavs in- Bell and Watson

Why Jazz do it- Jazz get younger and faster at PG and get to see if Collison performs with players and system over next few months. Jones probably rots on end of bench, but better than rotting at home. The only reasons the Jazz don't do it is team chemistry with Watson and ability to use Bell contract in a trade involving Sap or Al.

Why Mavs do it- I would imagine that there is something going on between Collison and the coach or FO and the bridge has probably been burned with acquisition of Mike James. They seem to want a vet PG and Watson could provide that for them. Bell can't be any worse than Jones this year. I have to admit there is more reason for the Jazz to do it than the MAvs, though.

Post #2 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 10:52 pm

Seems a bit lopsided to me. Does Collison have a crummy contract?

The59Sound · Post #3 » by **The59Sound** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 10:58 pm

I can't think of any conceivable reason why the Mavs would entertain that trade. Inking Mike James isn't exactly a sign that your job is jeopardy, and the talent disparity in this proposed transaction is criminal.

MeestR · Post #4 » by **MeestR** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:10 pm

i find it funny that bell is included as an asset in all these trades. his contract is a liability, much like harps was back in the day. the jazz will have to include an actual asset to get another team to take him on, like maynor was.

so watson is the asset to offset bell's contract, what are the jazz going to give up for collison and jones?

Post #5 » by **StocktonShorts** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:17 pm

^^ In most trades I've seen Bell is included as a known liability

red4hf · Post #6 » by **red4hf** » Mon Jan 7, 2013 11:30 pm

Done..... Sign me up......

SoCalJazzFan · Post #7 » by **SoCalJazzFan** » Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:35 am

I've seen Collison bumped as the starter several times this year and wondered if there is some conflict there. However, after digging deeper, the Mike James signing might be to get a vet PG in place of the departed Derek Fisher and the Mavs aren't overly anxious to unload Collison (although in the past they haven't seemed to be in love wtih him).

If at all feasible, it would take at least Foye in addition to Watson (for Collison and DJones) to work it out and I'm not sure the Mavs bite even on this. Personally, I would be thrilled with sending Watson and Foye to get Collison as a few month tryout. I would probably still pull the trigger on Demare and Watson, but it would give me pause.

Timing is perfect as Mo out for another month or so at least and if Collison worked out better than Mo it would be easy to make that decision in the offseason. Might not be the star PG people want, but could be good enough.

Post #8 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue Jan 8, 2013 3:09 am

MeestR wrote:i find it funny that bell is included as an asset in all these trades. his contract is a liability, much like harps was back in the day. the jazz will have to include an actual asset to get another team to take him on, like maynor was.

so watson is the asset to offset bell's contract, what are the jazz going to give up for collison and jones?

since when an expiring contract is a liability?

UTJazzFan_Echo1 · Post #9 » by **UTJazzFan_Echo1** » Tue Jan 8, 2013 7:33 am

Here's the trade I would propose....

Millsap, Tinsley and Carroll

for

Collison and Marion

That seems pretty fair for both sides, ya?

Post #10 » by **StocktonShorts** » Tue Jan 8, 2013 8:03 am

Ugh. Don't want either of those guys.