jumpin bean
Well-Known Member
TEAMS ARE STARTING TO SEE FIRE SALE AND THINK WE ARE JUST GOING TO GIVE AWAY GUYS FOR NOTHING.
Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz
- Thread starter Ferguson_Mellochill
- Start date
Avery
Well-Known Member
Gonna take more than that to absorb $47M knowing that many teams would take Clarkson over Westbrook anyway.
I'm pretty sure the Jazz would think about this.
Especially if they're getting lukewarm offers for each guy individually (seconds, or late/heavily protected firsts, or long-term returning salary). If those Laker picks are unprotected, those two firsts and Westbrook's expiring might just be the best we can get from that combination of players. (I'd hope for more, but wouldn't be shocked if no better deal is out there.)
The prize isn't the players anymore for us. It's the draft capital and financial flexibility. Westbrook and those two Laker picks (if unprotected) look pretty juicy in those terms.
I would do that, I think. In particular that '27 LAL pick can easily be gold. I think getting those two picks should be a priority. Lakers badly need to get in someone to be able to compete this year.
Uhh? Those Lakers picks are crazy valuable and the players the Jazz are sending are not valuable at all to us and our objectives moving forward besides what other picks the Jazz could fetch for them, and this is the only scenario where they get unprotected picks.
This is a dream proposal. I would send more/better than that to get those picks. The Lakers definitely have lots of built in advantage but they are one of the worst run franchises in the league and are essentially unable to rebuild. Those picks are gold.
The Lakers said no to sending those picks for Myles Turner and Buddy Hield which is better than what the Jazz are sending in this ‘lol no way our guys are way too good for that crap’ proposal.
Hearsky
Well-Known Member
Buy her out and stretch her payments. It's the American way.
Ineptimusprime
Well-Known Member
I don’t think this is enough picks heading our direction on a deal like this. If Royce got a first round pick, It’s not inconceivable that each of Bev, Clarkson, and Beasley could fetch a single FRP in separate deals. We are also taking on huge bad salary to help the Lakers out significantly. There’s a price to be paid for that. 2 FRPs isn’t even enough picks to compensate for the three very useful players we’d be sending out.
I don’t hate the concept of adding picks to the war chest and adding Russ’ huge expiring salary to the mix so we can take on more bad salary next offseason in exchange for picks, but we would be sending about 3 FRPs worth of player value back to the Lakers and taking on at least one FRP and multiple seconds worth of bad salary back from the Lakers. The proposal is a little less than half the pick compensation we would need back.
1. Moderately to highly protected picks. Not all 1sts are created equal, and if you’re using Royce as an example then a pick in the 20’s is what you’re getting if we’re being at all honest. Royce also went for more than anyone thought he should have.
2. We don’t know that each player will even fetch that much. Beverley - a 34 year old on an expiring contract - is almost certain to not except in a bundle and in a highly specific scenario (like this one; a desperate team with a maybe one-year window and trying to get their best player to extend). There is no reason to want him here nor a reason for him to want to be here. We also have a huge stake in jettisoning players that might help us win. Turning your nose up at unprotected picks in this scenario truly blows my mind.
3. There are only so many 1st round picks that are even able to be traded, realistically. The more picks are owed in the total market, the more valuable picks become due to scarcity of availability, and the more reluctant teams will be to pony up a pick. This is especially true of protected picks owed because they often don’t convey for years which complicates trading more picks due to the Stepien Rule. This also makes it more likely that we receive more recent picks for them, which I doubt we get more ‘23 picks due to the depth of that draft and I’m not necessarily looking for more picks in ‘24 or ‘25 (we will have one gazillion prospects to sift through by that time). The timing of those Lakers picks for that reason are also ideal.
We will not have any shortage of draft capital in quantity moving forward. There will be many opportunities to snag picks from teams in the next three years (assuming the Jazz rent their cap space which I think they will). Opportunities to snag unprotected picks from badly run franchises don’t appear often. In fact, I don’t think that happens for a few years after this crazy off-season (at least/especially in the case that the Lakers end up trading those picks).
Last edited:
I think it's more like a peaceful yard sale.
Last edited:
It's not inconceivable -- that's true. But I would also say it's probably less likely than many of us think. Trade value includes player value combined with contract. Each of these players is owed $13+ million, while Royce was owed less than $10 million. Royce started 210 NBA games in the last 3 seasons (on one of the best teams in the league over those years). Bev, Clarkson and Beasley combined started (oddly enough) 210 games over the last three seasons. Despite what we've thought about Royce on this forum, it would not surprise me in the least if Royce holds the highest trade value of these four players. And, as Numbs said, not all firsts are created equal. So if Royce only got a very late 1st rounder (likely Philly's pick this year -- good chance #25 or worse), what kind of picks do you expect these other guys to fetch? Two good-to-middling FRPs may well be better than 3 late ones. I suspect that our FO has a pulse on the market, in any case. If you're right that they can get solid first rounders for each individually, I'm sure they'll go that route.
We are sending out just as much (or virtually as much) "bad" salary as we'd be taking on. If we're truly tanking, Bev, Clarkson, and Beasley's approx. $45 million is just as useless for us as Westbrook's. And maybe worse than useless, because they are players who are not in our long-term plans that nonetheless needlessly help us win games. I don't care if we help the Lakers; if we can get 2 FRPs for essentially free (in addition to coming off more salary sooner), I'll take that every time (again, unless there's something better out there that's available).
I don't get your math here. We don't take on any negative draft value by taking on Westbrook. We just cut him and he's a zero value for us. The only math question that matters is whether our three players we've discussed can fetch more elsewhere than whatever 2 Lakers FRPs might be coming back. I've already explained why I think there's a good chance the Lakers' picks might be the better option, but you may certainly disagree.
Ineptimusprime
Well-Known Member
Beverley, Clarkson, and Beasley are not “bad” salary by any stretch of the imagination. Though they don’t serve Utah’s objectives next season, that doesn’t mean we cash them in for pennies. They are all positive trade value players.
Russ is “bad” salary by all objective measures because he is on an awful contract and is no longer a winning player.
The “bad” salary is looked at from the Lakers perspective. Russ is awful on their books, and adding Clarkson, Beverley, and Beasley would be adding positive value. So we would be doing the Lakers 2 big favors: (1) taking Russ and his contract off their hands; and (2) giving them three useful players to use or trade.
If we are giving them three positive value players and taking on one very negative value player for them, I think the Jazz deserve to be compensated much better than 2 FRPs, but that’s just me. I am plenty confident Ainge can find better returns for these players if the Lakers aren’t willing to increase pick compensation in a Russ centered deal.
Lakers could add a few seconds and perhaps a swap, I guess, but literally can't add any more FRPs. They have no more available to give. But this is not the real issue.
Our players(') (salaries) are only useful to us when we trade them (assuming a tank). Otherwise, they're every bit as "bad" for us as Westbook's. But even this only starts to point to the real issue.
It doesn't matter whether we are doing the Lakers 2 big favors.
It only matters (to us) whether what the Lakers give us for those favors is better than what we could get for those players elsewhere. You're confident that we can do better than 2 Laker FRPs elsewhere for these three players (I'd welcome you providing a "for example" scenario). I'm less confident, and have hinted at why in my previous post, but will be happy if Ainge proves me wrong.
framer
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I do Beasley as a throw in. Also Clarkson is 2 years on a really good salary. He has more value than Royce. Not sure why the Lakers would want Pat Bev and Clarkson together either. See if you can interest them in Bojan who would be a better short term fit. I think a Lakers deal can be done, I just don't think it is those three players. Make the Lakers eat expirings if you can.
Why do we want them "eating" expirings? We should be coveting them more than most (unless they come with - surprise - more draft capital).
I don't have any problem about haggling over which players are more useful to the Lakers. I wouldn't necessarily have picked those three guards together either (from the Lakers perspective).
I suppose it would be interesting to rank our own trade assets and maybe try to estimate what each could return on their own (ie, a ?-round pick, expected to fall in the ? - ? range).
Not quite sure what you mean by make the Lakers eat expirings. Wouldn't it be better (for us) to have them take on non-expirings (such as Rudy Gay or Conley)?
framer
Well-Known Member
Because Clarkson and Beasley are good players on good contracts. I mean if Lebron opts out they are going to have cap space either way. Don't make the situation there attractive at all to sign someone good.
I think my motto in most circumstances would be to prioritize my own interests first (in this case, the Jazz getting rid of salary quickly) because you can't really control what the other guy is going to do. I don't really see Clarkson and Beasley (vs Beverley and Bogey, say) as key to the Lakers' record in 2027 and 2029.
Last edited:
Ineptimusprime
Well-Known Member
I think we are in agreement we should move off our veteran players.
I just think we can do better than 2 total FRPs for Beverley, Clarkson, and Beasley. You disagree. I guess we’ll see what happens. The proposed trade with the Lakers does achieve some objectives, it just doesn’t seem like enough draft compensation to me.
And if the Jazz are able to pick up multiple 1sts AND 2nds with the extra cap space they’ll have in 2023? Cuz they’d save ~$30 million in cap space doing the aforementioned move.