2019 Trade Deadline Discussion

[LoPo]

Mavs: That team was a bunch of old farts
Cleveland: James was 32
Spurs: Last two rings came with Duncan and Ginobili above 30 (1st ring came with an over 30 Robinson/Johnson/Elliot/Kerrr)
Bulls: Last 3 rings came with their core over 30
Lakers: Their 2-peat in the Gasol era came with Kobe/Gasol/Artest/Odom over 30
Celtics: KG/Allen/Pierce all over 30
Heat: 1st ring of Wade era came with an over 30 Shaq
Rockets: 2-peat with Hakeem/Drexler/Thorpe over 30

Mavs: That team was a bunch of old farts
Cleveland: James was 32
Spurs: Last two rings came with Duncan and Ginobili above 30 (1st ring came with an over 30 Robinson/Johnson/Elliot/Kerrr)
Bulls: Last 3 rings came with their core over 30
Lakers: Their 2-peat in the Gasol era came with Kobe/Gasol/Artest/Odom over 30
Celtics: KG/Allen/Pierce all over 30
Heat: 1st ring of Wade era came with an over 30 Shaq
Rockets: 2-peat with Hakeem/Drexler/Thorpe over 30

You said teams dont start winning titles until their best players are in their 30's.

The Mavs - debatable I'll give you

Cleveland - 1 player (who already had titles) doesn't outweigh Kyrie and Love being well under 30

The Spurs don't win titles without young Duncan and Kawhi Leonard who "were their best players"

Bulls don't count because they already won titles

Lakers don't count because they already won titles

Boston counts

Miami doesn't count because Miami was led by young Wade their best player.

Rockets - I don't want to look it up but I'll give it to you

So according to you "most teams don't start winning titles until their best players are in their 30's". That's wrong because only 4 teams which support your theory over the last 30+ years count. And two of those teams were 1 offs so they didn't "start winning titles" because they won their one.

Regardless, we are an older team with no championship pedigree and no superstar at this point. We need to make moves before the deadline. Not blow it up, but better support the team.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

You said teams dont start winning titles until their best players are in their 30's.

The Mavs - debatable I'll give you

Cleveland - 1 player (who already had titles) doesn't outweigh Kyrie and Love being well under 30

The Spurs don't win titles without young Duncan and Kawhi Leonard who "were their best players"

Bulls don't count because they already won titles

Lakers don't count because they already won titles

Boston counts

Miami doesn't count because Miami was led by young Wade their best player.

Rockets - I don't want to look it up but I'll give it to you

So according to you "most teams don't start winning titles until their best players are in their 30's". That's wrong because only 4 teams which support your theory over the last 30+ years count. And two of those teams were 1 offs so they didn't "start winning titles" because they won their one.

Regardless, we are an older team with no championship pedigree and no superstar at this point. We need to make moves before the deadline. Not blow it up, but better support the team.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

They all count man. You can't apply your flimsy logic to everything just so you can be right.

I have no idea how winning a ring prior, especially in the case of the Lakers (who were a completely differnet team than the Shaq/Kobe Lakes), makes my point invalid.

Most teams dont win rings without their best players in their 30's.

Like it's pretty much only the Pistons, Lebron Heat, and mid 00's Spurs who didnt, and those guys were late 20's. Your idea that Gobert being 26 meaning we have to win now is just wrong. The likely thing that will happen, if Utah has a chance, is they will win a ring when Gobert is in his early 30's and Mitchell in his mid to late 20's.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And I never said the word "start". Every team is it's own unique thing. Just because Jordan won 2 titles before turning 30 doesnt change the fact he won 4 of them in his 30's. Winning one title doesnt increase your odds of winning another. 4/6 of Jordan's rings came with stars vets over 30.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

Cleveland? Kyrie and Love nope.

The Mavs - debatable I'll give you

Lol. Ok, have some integrity. Their best players were nearing their last legs. How is that debatable

Cleveland - 1 player (who already had titles) doesn't outweigh Kyrie and Love being well under 30

Lmao. Kyrie and Love don’t win a title without LBJ.

And I never said the word "start". Every team is it's own unique thing. Just because Jordan won 2 titles before turning 30 doesnt change the fact he won 4 of them in his 30's. Winning one title doesnt increase your odds of winning another. 4/6 of Jordan's rings came with stars vets over 30.

Let’s not forget, it took years and years for Jordan’s Bulls to break through. I don’t think you need to be thirty to win, but it takes time and experience to learn to win in the nba. Different players get there on their time. One thing is clear, adding offense isn’t going to automatically elevate this team to chip status. We can’t just add a Russell or a Tim Hardaway Jr. or Parker. Those guys don’t elevate a team.

 

[LoPo]

This is such a stupid argument on both sides. Sure some older teams win titles and all title teams have key younger players. Almost all "older" title winning teams create title pedigree well before they win it additional times.

We don't have title pedigree or superstars so we are wasting our time with this conversation.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

This is such a stupid argument on both sides. Sure some older teams win titles and all title teams have key younger players. Almost all "older" title winning teams create title pedigree well before they win it additional times.

We don't have title pedigree or superstars so we are wasting our time with this conversation.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

 

[infection]

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

I don't see Gobert leaving as long as Utah pays him. He's also probably not going to be as highly sought out/recruited as other top stars.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

I think we will have no issue retaining Rudy. My issue is just whether he will hold up well into his 30s or if because he's a big his knees/feet give out. I can see him being extremely productive long-term.

I don't think a really good team or contender would outbid us for his services. He's a great player but a tricky fit for some teams. So between being the team that was loyal to him and helped him become what he is, having a good relationship with him (seemingly), being the best team to maximize what he brings, and also his best chance at winning... I think he stays. We aren't NO yet... where we are capped out with no young prospects or assets to move stuff around. Two straight years to the second round... he got his DPOY here... I'm not worried about losing him. He's said he thinks it means more to win a championship with a team built.

 

[LoPo]

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

I said it seems like you're saying, not you are saying. Like if you follow your own logic, the Jazz should cut bait with Gobert if he hasnt won a ring in his 20's (if the only thing you care about is ring or bust, which it seems like is your thing).

And Gobert isnt an option, he's a system.

 

[Alfalfa]

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

Or the Spurs, or MJ, or or or. It is generally a correct statement that teams with experienced stars win championships. GSW is unusual for having started winning when their stars were in their mid twenties.

 

[LoPo]

I think we will have no issue retaining Rudy. My issue is just whether he will hold up well into his 30s or if because he's a big his knees/feet give out. I can see him being extremely productive long-term.

I don't think a really good team or contender would outbid us for his services. He's a great player but a tricky fit for some teams. So between being the team that was loyal to him and helped him become what he is, having a good relationship with him (seemingly), being the best team to maximize what he brings, and also his best chance at winning... I think he stays. We aren't NO yet... where we are capped out with no young prospects or assets to move stuff around. Two straight years to the second round... he got his DPOY here... I'm not worried about losing him. He's said he thinks it means more to win a championship with a team built.

I agree 100%. Good post.

I think we have Gobert as long as we want to pay to keep him. I love Gobert for the length of his current contract, but I do have major concerns about his long term success in the league. Ideally, I think he is a 4th or 5th option for an offense yet we currently seem to rely on him like he is the 2nd or 3rd option. If we want him to have a long career using the best of his abilities, we need to let him focus primarily on his defense and rebounding while giving him plenty of rest throughout the seasons. His next contract scares the crap out of me because a max or near max deal, should we offer one, could cripple us when he is 30+. Centers with his size and skill set seem to plummet as they get older. Most of the worst contracts in the league are to big men.

 

[LoPo]

I said it seems like you're saying, not you are saying. Like if you follow your own logic, the Jazz should cut bait with Gobert if he hasnt won a ring in his 20's (if the only thing you care about is ring or bust, which it seems like is your thing).

And Gobert isnt an option, he's a system.

I never said cut anybody. Can you read or just troll?

I said that we rely on an older roster too much and we need to find a player or two before the deadline to help take some weight off of them. Damn man, you just like to be a pain don't you?

Read the bolded sentence above Cy. Be better.

 

[DasJazz]

Remember when the trade deadline discussion thread was actually about trades? Me either.

 

[Sandman822]

Or the Spurs, or MJ, or or or. It is generally a correct statement that teams with experienced stars win championships. GSW is unusual for having started winning when their stars were in their mid twenties.

I don't think they were unusual tbh, the LeBron era Heat set that precedent before them. OKC also got to the finals with all of their future MVPs in their early 20s iirc.

Also I don't think that Durant ever signs with the 73 win Warriors if LeBron didn't lay down the foundations for star players willingly teaming up with other star players in their prime. LeBron took a metric ****ton of criticism for it and I don't think Durant would be able to handle that if he was the first to do it as he also got a metric ****ton of criticism because he joined a 73 win team, but at least people were able to make the comparison to LeBron's FA in 2010 whether you think it's a fair comparison or not.

 

[LoPo]

Or the Spurs, or MJ, or or or. It is generally a correct statement that teams with experienced stars win championships. GSW is unusual for having started winning when their stars were in their mid twenties.

He said most teams don't win titles until their stars are in their early 30's. The Spurs were led by mid-20's Duncan and they weren't title contenders until they got him. The Bulls won their first three peat with MJ and Pippen in their late 20's. MJ was 28, 29 and 30 when they won their 1st three peat.

So no - most teams don't win titles until their stars are in their early 30's. Can a team win a title with their stars being in their early 30's? Absolutely. But most of those teams show championship pedigree before they hit their 30's.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I never said cut anybody. Can you read or just troll?

I said that we rely on an older roster too much and we need to find a player or two before the deadline to help take some weight off of them. Damn man, you just like to be a pain don't you?

Read the bolded sentence above Cy. Stop being Cy. Be better.

Yes, that's why I said it seems like your saying, not explicitly saying it. Do you understand? I was reading in between the lines.

 

[LoPo]

Yes, that's why I said it seems like your saying, not explicitly saying it. Do you understand? I was reading in between the lines.

I have never, ever questioned the age of Gobert and Mitchell. So you saying I was talking about dumping them is foolish regardless of trying to read between the lines. I have said for a while that I think we rely too much on older players who have never produced at a championship level. Most importantly, our contention window is right now because of the age and contracts of some of our key guys. Playing Rubio and Ingles 30+ minutes per night is not working and will only hurt us as we approach the postseason. We are already playing Crowder 27 minutes per night which about his max in my opinion. Korver is playing over 18 already.

I think we need to do what we can before the trade deadline to at least get another quality rotation player.

 

[Dali]

Break that down for me. Name some teams that won titles after their best players turned 30. Miami? Nope. Cleveland? Kyrie and Love nope. Golden State? Nope. San Antonio? Nope. What are you babbling about Cy?


Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

What this tells me is that you don’t win until you have a superstar, ie top five player that is at least 27, that’s when jordan won his first and when Pippen was ready. Same with Lebron, 27.

If we count Rudy borderline superstar (I saw somewhere that he is 7th best player this season), it won’t matter much until Donovan is ready, and might not be ready until Rudy is 30+.