For the 22-23 season, they're only 4.2M apart (19.3M vs 23.5M)--close enough to match straight up. For 21-22 they're 4.9M apart, but still close enough.
There's too much collins noise... Think the haggling will be over the involvement of 16, but the 7 for collins framework seems real.
It’s also lying season. That info is out there for a reason. Maybe the actual target is someone else, like OG. They are another team interested in Daniels allegedly
think i like the idea of 7 + extras for Collins + 16 better than 7 for OG. underlying point though... none of these targets are all that awe-inspiring. im torn between just keeping 7 and making these moves.
I might just be being a homer but I don't think Collins, especially given the fact that he was being so heavily shopped and isn't quite producing to his contract, justifies the 7th pick and the 16th pick would have to be included. Yeah they're still having to take on Bledsoe's contract next season but they're getting out from under the rest of Collins's money (~83M). So, moving up 9 picks and getting future cap relief is very likely going to be far better than any other offer they're going to get. No one has a TPE big enough to just absorb his contract and unless OKC is after him, no one else can absorb his contract into cap space unless they're planning on waiting for free agency and a lopsided trade. I mean there could be haggling about us getting their second rounder or them getting ours or a future second but I think Bledsoe and 7 for Collins and 16 is about as sensible as a trade gets. His production has been going the wrong way the last three seasons and he hasn't been the model of health. If anything I would say that the deal is on the table for us and we're trying to see if we can get more out of the 7th pick than that.
This gives ATL the immediate capspace they might want to go after someone like Ayton, while picking up Trent.
hold on, the Blazers give up Bledsoe, #7, their 2nd this year, and a future 1st? That would be a monumental fleecing.
fleecing for what team? thought that was pretty fair. We'd have our roster set for the near future. Dame/Ant/OG/Collins/Nurk, with Hart and Nas off the bench. We'd still have our full MLE to play with as well.
Portland gives up a contract, a 1st round, a 2nd round and a future 1st round, for arguably the two of the three best players in the scenario. And they basically give 1 roster spot.
Gallinari is only guaranteed for like 5 million next year. Does shedding 11 million that Atlanta sheds here actually get them significant cap space?
i genuinely don't understand your gripe? - we give up all our assets for guys who fit the team. - there is a rumor today from SI that mentions Toronto being interested in Gobert, and that they'd potentially give up Trent + OG to get him. - there is a rumor today from Jake that mentions Ainge being previously interested in Capela. Utah not only gets long term cap savings by getting rid of Gobert's deal but they get a guy Ainge has targeted in the past and #7. - ATL has been rumored everywhere to be one of the teams interested in finding a guard next to Trae. They get Trent in the deal while also picking up future assets. But the main appeal for ATL is opening up enough space to land Ayton who they have been linked to. Not sure why you're incredulous?
not enough space to land Ayton. Given their capholds, not entirely sure this idea gets them there either.
Because Portland is giving out 1 real asset in the trade, the #7 pick. The 2nd rounder? Big deal. A future 1st? Could be good, could be crap. Bledsoe? He's a contract, nothing more. Portland gives up diddily squat and gets Collins AND OG? They'd be fleecing the other teams.
You're missing the point. Portland benefits a TON, and gives up almost nothing. It would never happen, not on this or any other planet where humanoid life appears.
Also, I'd say the Jazz and the Hawks get fleeced, and realistically, the Raptors don't do that great either.
well, we were just on the other end of it in February when we gave up a bunch of players for so called flexibility. this is just using that flexibility to fill out the roster again. and if you can't even pinpoint the single team that is getting "fleeced," not sure why you seem to have a problem with the idea.
ok, I'll change the word I used. Portland gets laughed at for giving up so little and getting so much in return. It's not a realistic trade, and Portland would be laughed at and hung up on by the teams that are receiving their goods in return. Especially Atlanta. And Utah wouldn't accept that trade. And I would argue that the Raptors are the only team that would contemplate this trade scenario (other than Portland, who would jump at the chance to give up 4 non roster assets to get 2 starters)
