The trade winds are a'blowin'...

[infection]

I think you hit most of the points well here.

Collins is being scapegoated a bit by guys who dont really have any arguments besides "he doesnt fit". However the fit is actually NOT the issue, but its the fact that with or without Collins we lacked guys who can create advantages for themselves or even more importantly, for others. Collins doesnt really make these issues significantly worse as he can generate points from his offensive rebounds or dribbling in from the perimeter or from the post and he does move around off-ball giving himself passing lanes and creating easy C&S opportunities.

His impact is positive offensively. His ratings dont fully reflect that but he has played more minutes against opposing starters than anyone on this team. On defense he has only been a negative because of Hardy trying to play him as the small ball 5 which he really cannot do. He doesnt have the length to protect the rim or to contest/bother taller players without leaving his feet. On perimeter and transition he is decent.

Our main two problems positionally have been guard and center play (Collins contributing to latter but that falls more on Hardy for not playing Yurt7 when Kessler was out). For the guards, if a rookie (who is playing at rookie efficiency and making rookie mistakes) wins the starting job around game 10 it tells a bit about the quality of play we got from the vets. However the biggest problem is that Kessler played really bad early on, and while we can chalk it on the injury it doesnt mean it didnt happen or that it didnt impact the team. I mean Kessler has -15.8 rating when playing with Lauri (which is Lauri's worst net rating by a margin of 8.7), and Lauri has an offensive rating of 110+ with literally everyone besides Walker, with whom the rating is 101.1. Walker on the other hand has an offensive rating of 105+ with exactly two players: KO (only 70 minutes) and Kris Dunn (only 40 minutes).

Collins negative ratings are more of a product of him playing a support role in a bad team where the guards play is poor on both ends and center play has been even more horrible. You can only blame him for not being the solution, but he isnt the problem either.

I don’t know that anyone is scapegoating him, believing he’s the problem for our woes, or saying that he’s terrible. Right now he’s our highest paid player and our best argument for him is saying he’s not terrible. This is why I use the money-tied-up-in-a-1%-CD analogy. You’re definitely getting a return and your money is “safe,” if that’s how you want to see it, but it’s tied up, not liquid, you can’t pull it out for something else, and as reassuring as 1% sounds “in this economy,” you’re getting crushed by inflation on the backend that will completely negate any positives, but the books look a little better when you don’t correct for inflation or presume it doesn’t exist.

I’d honestly rather keep it in a savings account drawing 0.2% interest, or even a no-interest checking, because at least it’s liquid. The 1% isn’t worth the diminished liquidity.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I don’t know that anyone is scapegoating him, believing he’s the problem for our woes, or saying that he’s terrible. Right now he’s our highest paid player and our best argument for him is saying he’s not terrible. This is why I use the money-tied-up-in-a-1%-CD analogy. You’re definitely getting a return and your money is “safe,” if that’s how you want to see it, but it’s tied up, not liquid, you can’t pull it out for something else, and as reassuring as 1% sounds “in this economy,” you’re getting crushed by inflation on the backend that will completely negate any positives, but the books look a little better when you don’t correct for inflation or presume it doesn’t exist.

I’d honestly rather keep it in a savings account drawing 0.2% interest, or even a no-interest checking, because at least it’s liquid. The 1% isn’t worth the diminished liquidity.

I'm not following the Collins contract in relation to inflation? FWIW I don't disagree with you on this, just asking for some clarity.

 

[default]

I would shop Clarkson and THT first. I don't see them on the team in a couple years and we are losing anyway. Also I think they might have some value to other teams even though more for Jordan.

 

[HermanG]

I don’t know that anyone is scapegoating him, believing he’s the problem for our woes, or saying that he’s terrible. Right now he’s our highest paid player and our best argument for him is saying he’s not terrible. This is why I use the money-tied-up-in-a-1%-CD analogy. You’re definitely getting a return and your money is “safe,” if that’s how you want to see it, but it’s tied up, not liquid, you can’t pull it out for something else, and as reassuring as 1% sounds “in this economy,” you’re getting crushed by inflation on the backend that will completely negate any positives, but the books look a little better when you don’t correct for inflation or presume it doesn’t exist.

I’d honestly rather keep it in a savings account drawing 0.2% interest, or even a no-interest checking, because at least it’s liquid. The 1% isn’t worth the diminished liquidity.

Entertain me here... why have you not once called out Clarkson extension for this exact same reason but called out Collins trade at least a dozen times?

Also your analogy is just bad and lacks common sense (which is revealed by TU liking it tbh).

Collins value dropped last season dramatically because his 3PT percentage fell and became a red flag due to his finger injury. Now its back up and at career high. There are more signs pointing towards a successful reclamation project than wasted cap space at this point.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think you hit most of the points well here.

Collins is being scapegoated a bit by guys who dont really have any arguments besides "he doesnt fit". However the fit is actually NOT the issue, but its the fact that with or without Collins we lacked guys who can create advantages for themselves or even more importantly, for others. Collins doesnt really make these issues significantly worse as he can generate points from his offensive rebounds or dribbling in from the perimeter or from the post and he does move around off-ball giving himself passing lanes and creating easy C&S opportunities.

His impact is positive offensively. His ratings dont fully reflect that but he has played more minutes against opposing starters than anyone on this team. On defense he has only been a negative because of Hardy trying to play him as the small ball 5 which he really cannot do. He doesnt have the length to protect the rim or to contest/bother taller players without leaving his feet. On perimeter and transition he is decent.

Our main two problems positionally have been guard and center play (Collins contributing to latter but that falls more on Hardy for not playing Yurt7 when Kessler was out). For the guards, if a rookie (who is playing at rookie efficiency and making rookie mistakes) wins the starting job around game 10 it tells a bit about the quality of play we got from the vets. However the biggest problem is that Kessler played really bad early on, and while we can chalk it on the injury it doesnt mean it didnt happen or that it didnt impact the team. I mean Kessler has -15.8 rating when playing with Lauri (which is Lauri's worst net rating by a margin of 8.7), and Lauri has an offensive rating of 110+ with literally everyone besides Walker, with whom the rating is 101.1. Walker on the other hand has an offensive rating of 105+ with exactly two players: KO (only 70 minutes) and Kris Dunn (only 40 minutes).

Collins negative ratings are more of a product of him playing a support role in a bad team where the guards play is poor on both ends and center play has been even more horrible. You can only blame him for not being the solution, but he isnt the problem either.

To be clear I’m not scapegoating him… I’m more pondering the disconnect between his individual performance and the team on court performance.

I think you may have pinpointed the issue… he’s not the problem but he’s not the solution. It’s a lot to pay for neutral? Not sure what the opportunity costs were but the idea that he’s was free just isn’t true. While he has performed well I’d take a get out of jail free card if I could. It’s partly him and partly the situation.

If the rationale behind getting him is “we like John the player” I can understand what DA was going for. If it was “we can flip this into something better or draft assets” I think we will be disappointed.

First step here is get Lauri back and see if Lauri JC Kessler works now that they are healthy and our guards aren’t as bad as they were to start the season. I would have thought the focus of the season would be to build around Lauri Walker and the young guys and the Collins thing adds this side quest that is distracting imo.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Entertain me here... why have you not once called out Clarkson extension for this exact same reason but called out Collins trade at least a dozen times?

Also your analogy is just bad and lacks common sense (which is revealed by TU liking it tbh).

Collins value dropped last season dramatically because his 3PT percentage fell and became a red flag due to his finger injury. Now its back up and at career high. There are more signs pointing towards a successful reclamation project than wasted cap space at this point.

It’s opportunity cost. Say we bought a 1% cd that can jump to 3% if market conditions are good… but it’s locked up for 2-3 years… what if there were significant upside investments we could make that have more potential.

 

[Elizah Huge]

The Collins trade was fine and is still fine. We literally would have had to sign someone to hit the salary floor if we hadn’t done it. We will need his large salary for a big trade.

 

[KqWIN]

As someone who's been high on Collins for awhile, I think this trade has played out pretty poorly for us. You win some, you lose some, and it looks like it just didn't work out here. I underestimated the effect of going from Trae Young to our guards, and his defense is really funky this year.

 

[homeytennis]

Does everyone want Rudy Gay back?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

As someone who's been high on Collins for awhile, I think this trade has played out pretty poorly for us. You win some, you lose some, and it looks like it just didn't work out here. I underestimated the effect of going from Trae Young to our guards, and his defense is really funky this year.

Not sure how its played out poorly per se. I think he has raised his value at least a little since the jump shot has improved. I think that was always going to be the main thing that gave him a value boost.

 

[infection]

Entertain me here... why have you not once called out Clarkson extension for this exact same reason but called out Collins trade at least a dozen times?

Also your analogy is just bad and lacks common sense (which is revealed by TU liking it tbh).

Collins value dropped last season dramatically because his 3PT percentage fell and became a red flag due to his finger injury. Now its back up and at career high. There are more signs pointing towards a successful reclamation project than wasted cap space at this point.

Regarding Collins/Clarkson, there are a few things:

First, Collins is making $25.5M this year. Clarkson is making $23.5M. The following two years, Collins makes $26.5M each year and Clarkson makes $14M each year for two years. Even independent of contract, Clarkson is going to hold much more value around the league and is fairly easy to move. I'm not sure why these two are juxtaposed.

Before Collins' value dropped, they had been trying to move him with no luck. It could be argued that they were asking for a lot more, but they ultimately settled for the value they got.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Not sure how its played out poorly per se. I think he has raised his value at least a little since the jump shot has improved. I think that was always going to be the main thing that gave him a value boost.

I'm just not sure that value is meaningful and able to be realized.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Regarding Collins/Clarkson, there are a few things:

First, Collins is making $25.5M this year. Clarkson is making $23.5M. The following two years, Collins makes $26.5M each year and Clarkson makes $14M each year for two years. Even independent of contract, Clarkson is going to hold much more value around the league and is fairly easy to move. I'm not sure why these two are juxtaposed.

Before Collins' value dropped, they had been trying to move him with no luck. It could be argued that they were asking for a lot more, but they ultimately settled for the value they got.

The Clarkson deal also came after we had kicked the tires on the FA market. But yeah 3/51 on a guard who can be a sixth man type on many different teams or a stretchy tweener that is paid 3/80M. I think John's best role is as a 3rd big and that is more of a 12-13M role imo. I know some throw out Aaron Gordon but he's not in Aaron's league as a defender or passer. Gordon also makes less per year.

At this point I'm guessing its just a hold and hope it fits better but I think the side quest here is going to hurt the long term vision of what we should be doing imo.

 

[infection]

The issue with whether the Collins deal was good is a matter of perspective or how you frame it. It's similar to the concept of relative risk vs. absolute risk, and how you view them may distort your perception of absolute risk when you focus on relative risk. As an example, being exposed to topiramate in pregnancy can result in a 3x risk for cleft lip / cleft palate. It sounds pretty drastic, and it really is, but it's only a relative risk. Depending on what you're looking at, the baseline rate for cleft lip / cleft palate is about 0.06%, whereas the risk with topiramate exposure is perhaps about 0.18%. Those numbers relatively are significantly different, but in reality the absolute numbers are drastically small, regardless of how you slice it.

Is Collins better than Gay and a second round pick? Yes. But how much does that matter? Obviously there's way more value in the player Collins than the second round pick and Gay. It's more a question of absolute value rather than relative value. If we're focused on the relative value it becomes a red herring. Under the @Handlogten's Heros theorem, what if Collins were a FA this summer and we signed him to 3 years / $78.5M? How would we be feeling about that? Right now we feel it's great value because we're comparing it against Rudy Gay and a second round pick, but I don't think we'd be nearly as enthused with 3 years / $78.5M when that's actually better than parting with the second round pick, but seems much less appetizing because of how it's presented. HH's idea was signing a couple other guys that provide value. I'll let him speak to that, but if you were to grab two guys at $12.5M a year that are going to be much easier to move, still able to be aggregate for that "star trade" that everyone says we need Collins' salary for, and overall would have more trade value than Collins. Remember, Collins' most recent trade value is Rudy Gay and a second round pick. We can laugh about how little we got Collins for, but that's his most recently appraised value.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The Collins trade was fine and is still fine. We literally would have had to sign someone to hit the salary floor if we hadn’t done it. We will need his large salary for a big trade.

We could have done that in a variety of ways though and had more movable players/contracts. If big trade flexibility is the goal I think we should have taken a different route.

 

[KqWIN]

Not sure how its played out poorly per se. I think he has raised his value at least a little since the jump shot has improved. I think that was always going to be the main thing that gave him a value boost.

Maybe....he's also not as good inside the paint and I don't think his defense has been very good. Going from 62% on 2's to 51% is a massive drop. It may not be his fault, but either way I don't think it's been a good showcase for him. His on/off splits are also dreadful and the metrics hate him which is bound to have some effect on his value around the league.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The issue with whether the Collins deal was good is a matter of perspective or how you frame it. It's similar to the concept of relative risk vs. absolute risk, and how you view them may distort your perception of absolute risk when you focus on relative risk. As an example, being exposed to topiramate in pregnancy can result in a 3x risk for cleft lip / cleft palate. It sounds pretty drastic, and it really is, but it's only a relative risk. Depending on what you're looking at, the baseline rate for cleft lip / cleft palate is about 0.06%, whereas the risk with topiramate exposure is perhaps about 0.18%. Those numbers relatively are significantly different, but in reality the absolute numbers are drastically small, regardless of how you slice it.

Is Collins better than Gay and a second round pick? Yes. But how much does that matter? Obviously there's way more value in the player Collins than the second round pick and Gay. It's more a question of absolute value rather than relative value. If we're focused on the relative value it becomes a red herring. Under the @Handlogten's Heros theorem, what if Collins were a FA this summer and we signed him to 3 years / $78.5M? How would we be feeling about that? Right now we feel it's great value because we're comparing it against Rudy Gay and a second round pick, but I don't think we'd be nearly as enthused with 3 years / $78.5M when that's actually better than parting with the second round pick, but seems much less appetizing because of how it's presented. HH's idea was signing a couple other guys that provide value. I'll let him speak to that, but if you were to grab two guys at $12.5M a year that are going to be much easier to move, still able to be aggregate for that "star trade" that everyone says we need Collins' salary for, and overall would have more trade value than Collins. Remember, Collins' most recent trade value is Rudy Gay and a second round pick. We can laugh about how little we got Collins for, but that's his most recently appraised value.

Correct. If you wanted salary place holders the best example is Bruce Brown in Indiana 2/40m and second year is a team option. Say we couldn't talk Bruce into 2 years and 45-48M cuz he wanted to go a place he fits better. Derrick Jones Jr. was had for a minimum deal. You telling me he wouldn't take 2/20m with the second year as a non-guarantee. The difference between him and John Collins to our record would be very little. That is a much more tradeable contract and even if you need to guarantee the deal at draft time to make a trade... you have that option. You'd have 35M in expiring deals between KO/THT/DJJ. You could keep the cap flexibility or go sign another 8-10M deal (say Jevon Carter or someone of that ilk).

Also, you could have just assume Evan Fournier's deal and taken a few second round picks for your trouble (get the 3% rate premium up front!). That deal is easy to trade this year as well. Play him or don't... doesn't matter. Then you can shop with more space or do the same dance this summer and collect a few more second round picks.

Or you could just go offer a guy like Max Strus 3/60M and that deal is more tradeable... cuz everyone needs that type of player.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Maybe....he's also not as good inside the paint and I don't think his defense has been very good. Going from 62% on 2's to 51% is a massive drop. It may not be his fault, but either way I don't think it's been a good showcase for him. His on/off splits are also dreadful and the metrics hate him which is bound to have some effect on his value around the league.

I think the 2 point percentage thing is easily explained with our spacing and requiring him to do things he's not great at. I think the defense has always been hit and miss. Not sure how his on/off stuff would be viewed since our team is hot garbage. Individually I think his value has gone up because the 3P shooting is critical to his value in most situations. I just think the upward mobility on his value is like 1-2 second round picks and a contract that might be a little shorter but might be attached to a player who isn't as good? Like its not going to be a first round pick and expiring money. Maybe a first for like Lonzo Ball, but getting out of the Ball deal is the bigger part of the value there.

Outside of a Lavine trade the only one I could think of was maybe Memphis for Adams and Clarke... maybe a couple seconds. Gives them some frontcourt depth and JJJ and John Collins might be interesting?

 

[sip]

Does everyone want Rudy Gay back?

Here we go. Gay was never coming back. We could have used the other 18 million in cap space though to sign some other pieces or take on bad salary for future draft picks. Unfortunately Collins was a poor way to use that space so far. He hasn't been bad but he hasn't been really good either and just doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the court. Ideally I think he is a solid bench big.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Does everyone want Rudy Gay back?

If you gave me a redo I would go ahead and waive Gay and send Collins back to Atlanta.