Right... but saying we'd rather have Okongwu is nice and all but its kinda like saying we don't want Clint but we will take a few firsts instead. I actually think taking Capela might provide the incentive that gets you Okongwu.
I think the Capela deal not being ideal is going to be part of the reason you get more. Say they leave Capela out and the offer is Huerter and Collins for Rudy... then they route #16 and Capela elsewhere. I think Clint is an averageish starting center and I would not see his inclusion as this massive negative value if I am also pitching Rudy as this HUGELY positive value on a deal that is $100M more than Clint's. I'd rather accept that deal and get the extra stuff that we can because of it.
I think there is a middle ground where its Collins, Huerter, Capela, #16 for Rudy Gobert, Gay, NAW... sub Okongwu in for #16 and/or Collins in some iterations. I think if you are dead set on not taking back Capela then its like Rudy for JC, Huerter (then you spend MLE or something on center)... I'll take Capela/16 and send out Gay's salary in that scenario instead.
Capela isn't a deal breaker for me.
Capela isn't a deal break for me either, but I want something extra back if we're taking him on. I really don't want to enter a negotiation thinking that we're getting a cheaper, contract friendly version of Gobert. If Capela is in the deal, which he will almost certainly will be in an ATL trade, that should be seen as a negative not a positive. There's no chance I'm taking Capela and thinking, "wow we just got a really solid C and a reasonable deal". There will be teams that think that of Capela, but I do not want to be one of them. I would much rather swing him to CHO or use the extra added incentive to send him to IND for Turner.