What's new
By:
Filters

Following Potential 2025 Draftees

Flagg, Bailey, Harper, Traore and several more high-level prospects create a pretty low-hanging-fruit opportunity for the Jazz to add quality talent next year. It sucks to lose another year, but that's probably the right move. Cleveland could be in disarray as well next year.

Add a solid starter or two in the '24 draft. Keep developing Keyonte, Brice and Taylor. Add one or two potential stars in the next draft. Then go big-game hunting. As it stands, outside of Lauri, the Jazz's trade assets are a bit ambiguous currently. We need to get a read on the value of the Cavs and Lakers' picks. Sure, picks in '28 and '29 will probably be good, but that's a long time for teams to have to wait.
 
default said:
So you are saying our pick will be outside the top 8 with our luck.
Click to expand...
Nah I'm saying we shouldn't do a dumb short sighted trade to chase a play-in birth so we can hand over a pick in the 11-14 range to OKC. One of the things folks attack the tank strategy with is "you want to tank for a 14% shot at Player X". In a draft that has 4-5 premier prospects and a couple that might be premier the odds of finding a difference maker if the ping pong balls fail you is much higher. Not saying this is the 2003 draft with bron, melo, wade, bosh... but thats the idea. Just don't take a Darko.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
There legit might be like 7-8 guys in next year's draft that would be consensus #1 guys this year. Just tank Danny
Click to expand...
Nah... we going "big game hunting" this summer. Whoever we pick in the draft, we are going to get a mediocre starter at his spot in FA only so the rookie would not play... then... you can always sell out for the tank mid-season. #theNoPlanPlan
 
stitches said:
Nah... we going "big game hunting" this summer. Whoever we pick in the draft, we are going to get a mediocre starter at his spot in FA only so the rookie would not play... then... you can always sell out for the tank mid-season. #theNoPlanPlan
Click to expand...
If we take a two year tank in these next two drafts we could be setup so well for some fantastic success over the next 10 years. Its not "the model" but OKC is already so awesome and setup to have so many ways to improve and supplement what they have built.

Maybe we strike out but if we can't find success in the top 5 of the next two drafts I'd be pretty shocked.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
If we take a two year tank in these next two drafts we could be setup so well for some fantastic success over the next 10 years. Its not "the model" but OKC is already so awesome and setup to have so many ways to improve and supplement what they have built.

Maybe we strike out but if we can't find success in the top 5 of the next two drafts I'd be pretty shocked.
Click to expand...
Shai has something big to say about OKC being great.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I understand. Swap out SGA for Lauri and they’d still be awesome and in a tremendous position,
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I like Lauri a lot but he's a solid #1 option and I don't think you think that as well. Otherwise you probably would look at different routes.

Without SGA they are not a playoff team. With Lauri swapped they are a solid team but I don't think are a contender but maybe in a few years. But in our scenario it likely requires trading him away to tank.

What's the chance that both top 4 picks in the following two drafts turn into anything above a starter level player? It's a risky thing to depend on. But if you're gambler hoping to hit it big it's probably a great option.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I don't think so. I like Lauri a lot but he's a solid #1 option and I don't think you think that as well. Otherwise you probably would look at different routes.

Without SGA they are not a playoff team. With Lauri swapped they are a solid team but I don't think are a contender but maybe in a few years. But in our scenario it likely requires trading him away to tank.

What's the chance that both top 4 picks in the following two drafts turn into anything above a starter level player? It's a risky thing to depend on. But if you're gambler hoping to hit it big it's probably a great option.
Click to expand...
If we draft bottom 4 in the next two years and come away with just starters or below then we have bigger problems than deciding whether or not to tank. That’s part of the reason I think tanking could be really profitable is because the next two drafts are stacked.

With OKC I doubt they go from 1 seed to out of the playoffs by replacing SGA with Lauri. Maybe more on the Sacramento tier but that’s just it… if you were in that tier and had the assets to leverage to push you upwards you are in a tremendous spot.

If we have to trade Lauri to tank then do it. Armed with top 5 picks the next two years, the young guys we have and the ones we add this year, and then stack the additional picks plus whatever a Lauri trade yields… look it might not turn into a real contender but it’d be pretty tough to not become a talented playoff team.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
With OKC I doubt they go from 1 seed to out of the playoffs by replacing SGA with Lauri. Maybe more on the Sacramento tier but that’s just it… if you were in that tier and had the assets to leverage to push you upwards you are in a tremendous spot.

If we have to trade Lauri to tank then do it. Armed with top 5 picks the next two years, the young guys we have and the ones we add this year, and then stack the additional picks plus whatever a Lauri trade yields… look it might not turn into a real contender but it’d be pretty tough to not become a talented playoff team.
Click to expand...
I didnt say they would be out of the playoffs with a SGA Lauri Swap. I said without SGA period they are not a playoff team. If its a swap of those players I dont think they are a contender I would agree with the Sac comparison.

I am not opposed to tanking if Lauri is in for that but its extremely unlikely he wants to stick around for that. So you are then talking about trading him away for picks. At that point you are just tanking until you land a star player and even once you do you are still going to be bad for a few years. But even the best of drafts and the best of prospects have/can be busts. Draft picks are very unreliable even at the top. I really dont want to watch the Jazz be the bottom team for a min of 5 years and likely longer if we trade Lauri and go that route. It could be a contender at some point but the team might not be in Utah because most the fans will have lost interest.

Either way we have to keep our options open. I dont think we are in a bad spot, but I am definitely not a fan of going scorched earth and put all my hopes in landing a big draft pick.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I didnt say they would be out of the playoffs with a SGA Lauri Swap. I said without SGA period they are not a playoff team. If its a swap of those players I dont think they are a contender I would agree with the Sac comparison.
Click to expand...

Gotcha… I didn’t process/read the first post very well. My bad.
Ron Mexico said:
I am not opposed to tanking if Lauri is in for that but its extremely unlikely he wants to stick around for that. So you are then talking about trading him away for picks. At that point you are just tanking until you land a star player and even once you do you are still going to be bad for a few years. But even the best of drafts and the best of prospects have/can be busts. Draft picks are very unreliable even at the top. I really dont want to watch the Jazz be the bottom team for a min of 5 years and likely longer if we trade Lauri and go that route. It could be a contender at some point but the team might not be in Utah because most the fans will have lost interest.

Either way we have to keep our options open. I dont think we are in a bad spot, but I am definitely not a fan of going scorched earth and put all my hopes in landing a big draft pick.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just feel like the next two drafts have enough HIGH level HIM types mixed with good upside prospects at the top and so it’s a profitable window that should be more reliable. The other issue is the pick we owe. If we trade say two picks to put some help with Lauri then we are absolutely losing one of our picks the next two years… and likely pushing the other into a much less profitable draft range. If Lauri is cool staying on while we figure thing out then awesome… I just wouldn’t be trying to force the accelerator with a trade for Ingram, Young, Bridges or whoever right now.

I do think if we went scorched earth it’s likely a long term project BUT we already have stuff in the pipeline that could make year 3 and 4 bigger jumps. We’ve seen Orlando and OKC do this with some unexpected jumps up.

The other issue is the west is just so ripe for the next year or two. You could trade some capital for a “star” and go from 7th-8th worst to borderline play in team and is that anymore satisfying? Maybe but I think if you tried to build and said “Lauri we love you and want you to be here long term… we also are going to build this organically until we have an amazing opportunity or some other event pushes us to do so… you in?” He might be in and I think you could end up with high picks that could pop around Lauri’s timeline. It will put you in the 6-8 pick range which is fine with a little luck maybe you jump up… but the threat of that OKC pick would still hang over us and we’d be tempted to pull the plug again. That mid tank cycle seems to be the biggest source of fan and player frustration.

Unless the big trade is an absolute home run I am out in it. I would rather a mid tank with Lauri or a full tank in some other way. It’s just tough watching the playoffs right now and thinking “if we get Brandon Ingram we can compete with these guys”.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I'd rather keep Lauri and draft in the 5-10 range than a top 4 with no Lauri
Click to expand...
If those were the choices I would be okay... though if you think you will be 9-10 the next two years then you are likely playing with fire or losing one of those picks. I am not sure Lauri really cares is we were the 4th worst team or 7th worst team... its likely he wouldn't be thrilled with it. I am good with that route. Most Jazz fans will lose their minds though as you either have to be tanking the eff outta this B or be awesome or have an obvious strategy they identify with.

I think there are lots of routes with a few main themes. I think the strongest possibilities are we go and trade for someone like Ingram. I think there is a strong possibility we strike out and its a similarly half hearted season this year unless there is an injury that pushes us bottom 4-5 we end up 8 or 9 ish. Or there is the various tank routes. Scorched earth... trade Lauri and Collin. Stealth tank.... trade Sexton to give the keys to Key and draft pick X.... we manage some of Lauri's minutes... Hardy manufactures some wins we didn't see coming... we end up somewhere between 5th and 8th.

I just think the "star" trade route sets us up for mediocrity and the other routes have more upside (with some pain attached obviously).
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I'd rather keep Lauri and draft in the 5-10 range than a top 4 with no Lauri
Click to expand...
And Cleveland or Minny (not likely) could tank... there's a small chance you could have both next year. It is not the way to maximize a shot at the top of the draft but it is still a possibility.
 
whatthe said:
And Cleveland or Minny (not likely) could tank... there's a small chance you could have both next year. It is not the way to maximize a shot at the top of the draft but it is still a possibility.
Click to expand...
Zero chance they tank. Small chance Cleveland ends up backend of the lotto if Don leaves and they have some injuries. Minny would have to have an Ant injury. I think our best picks the next two years are our own… 2027 hopefully that changes.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Gotcha… I didn’t process/read the first post very well. My bad.

Yeah I just feel like the next two drafts have enough HIGH level HIM types mixed with good upside prospects at the top and so it’s a profitable window that should be more reliable. The other issue is the pick we owe. If we trade say two picks to put some help with Lauri then we are absolutely losing one of our picks the next two years… and likely pushing the other into a much less profitable draft range. If Lauri is cool staying on while we figure thing out then awesome… I just wouldn’t be trying to force the accelerator with a trade for Ingram, Young, Bridges or whoever right now.

I do think if we went scorched earth it’s likely a long term project BUT we already have stuff in the pipeline that could make year 3 and 4 bigger jumps. We’ve seen Orlando and OKC do this with some unexpected jumps up.

The other issue is the west is just so ripe for the next year or two. You could trade some capital for a “star” and go from 7th-8th worst to borderline play in team and is that anymore satisfying? Maybe but I think if you tried to build and said “Lauri we love you and want you to be here long term… we also are going to build this organically until we have an amazing opportunity or some other event pushes us to do so… you in?” He might be in and I think you could end up with high picks that could pop around Lauri’s timeline. It will put you in the 6-8 pick range which is fine with a little luck maybe you jump up… but the threat of that OKC pick would still hang over us and we’d be tempted to pull the plug again. That mid tank cycle seems to be the biggest source of fan and player frustration.

Unless the big trade is an absolute home run I am out in it. I would rather a mid tank with Lauri or a full tank in some other way. It’s just tough watching the playoffs right now and thinking “if we get Brandon Ingram we can compete with these guys”.
Click to expand...
I guess probably the difference is you really only want to build a contender. I don't really care. I'm happy with a consistent 5th seed or so and maybe we get lucky one year. It's all a lot of luck anyways for a small market. Even 4 more years of tanking or being at the bottom and I'll probably watch very few of those games. I'm sure I'll start watching again but I have no interest in watching a team trying to lose for multiple years and then sucking for multiple years.

Even supposedly high drafts aren't always that great and there are plenty of misses at the top. It's a long road to go for a multi year tank and the only decent example of it paying off in a meaningful way is 76ers and that's pretty meh.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I guess probably the difference is you really only want to build a contender. I don't really care. I'm happy with a consistent 5th seed or so and maybe we get lucky one year. It's all a lot of luck anyways for a small market. Even 4 more years of tanking or being at the bottom and I'll probably watch very few of those games. I'm sure I'll start watching again but I have no interest in watching a team trying to lose for multiple years and then sucking for multiple years.

Even supposedly high drafts aren't always that great and there are plenty of misses at the top. It's a long road to go for a multi year tank and the only decent example of it paying off in a meaningful way is 76ers and that's pretty meh.
Click to expand...
Yeah I definitely want a team that's a contender. Understand if folks aren't all in on that. I just think the bar to get to that 5th seed the next year or two is REALLY high. Aiming for that spot and hitting the play in has some long term consequences.

Lots of teams have tanked, bottomed out, or just plain been bad and drafted high for a few years and it worked well. OKC Minnesota Philly Cleveland Orlando... SA back in the day too. Lots of teams have had mid results too... some teams have sucked in perpetuity and can't seem to figure it out even though they have drafted high.

I just think if management's goal was to have a perennial 5th seed.... well they should have kept Don and Rudy together as that will likely be better than whatever they manufacture with Lauri and star trade X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top