Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz

[Handlogten's Heros]

Think the new CBA makes long rebuilds less team friendly as well.

How so?

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

How so?

I think it encourages teams to build around players if they are good sooner. Sitting back and "letting it bake" just leads to your roster getting too expensive and not retainable.

 

[NUMBERICA]

link?

More importantly, who buys the legitimacy of this? Ainge is the most ruthless bastard in the league.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

No one in their right mind wants a long rebuild. The goal is to win games, not accumulate assets. Trading Lauri is ridiculous unless you are getting great proven talent and that isnt going to happen. If it takes more than one or two years to be legit you have to question the logic in trading two all stars instead of trading just one of them. WIN games and get to the playoffs!

I agree... but pre-trade we were willing to be in a rebuild. Lauri and Walker caught everyone by surprise.

Its not about collecting assets but adding to the value of the potential to win the most games long term. If someone offers 120% of FMV for our star... we should pass... if they offer 150% or 200% you take the deal.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Hollinger proposed #9 and 2025 Wolves pick for #5 from the Pistons. He also mentioned that the Jazz were definitely the best trade partner.

What’s his rationale for Detroit doing this?

 

[Bawse Dawg]

What’s his rationale for Detroit doing this?

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/UtahJazz/comments/13wnfkh/pistons_reporter_and_hollinger_talk_about_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3


Doesn't really go to in-depth. just asset accumulation I suppose.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think it encourages teams to build around players if they are good sooner. Sitting back and "letting it bake" just leads to your roster getting too expensive and not retainable.

I think it may very well do the opposite. You will only want to pay bona fide stars the max... you will want to churn a bit until you feel like you have those stars in the chamber. It will encourage some teams to flip guys... like OKC may flip Giddey or Williams before they get a super big deal... but there will be plenty of suitors for guys headed into the last year of their rookie deal.

You will need to find your stars and churn around them.

 

[stitches]

Think the new CBA makes long rebuilds less team friendly as well.

The new CBA also likely shortens the windows of contention... especially for teams without top 5-10ish talent.

This is part of the reason I think exploring trading Lauri is not as insane as some seem to think. This new CBA even more than previous CBAs incentivizes and rewards teams that have the best possible 1-2 punch. So the question we should be asking ourselves is - is Lauri that guy? Is he a 1 or a 2 on a championship contender? Honestly ... I don't know. Maybe he is? Or maybe he isn't... And I don't think the answer is as clear as some suggest... How certain are we that this is the new Lauri? How certain are we he won't regress to ... somewhere between his previous seasons and last season? How certain are we that when we actually are fighting for something and when the lights are brightest he will still shine?

Again... I am not saying we definitely should do it, but I also don't think it should be off the table completely. Now... of course, if we can get whoever we are targeting at 3-5 without trading him - of course, then it's a moot point, just spare the extra draft capital if you love that specific prospect that much and if you think he can be THE guy.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The new CBA also likely shortens the windows of contention... especially for teams without top 5-10ish talent.

This is part of the reason I think exploring trading Lauri is not as insane as some seem to think. This new CBA even more than previous CBAs incentivizes and rewards teams that have the best possible 1-2 punch. So the question we should be asking ourselves is - is Lauri that guy? Is he a 1 or a 2 on a championship contender? Honestly ... I don't know. Maybe he is? Or maybe he isn't... And I don't think the answer is as clear as some suggest... How certain are we that this is the new Lauri? How certain are we he won't regress to ... somewhere between his previous seasons and last season? How certain are we that when we actually are fighting for something and when the lights are brightest he will still shine?

Again... I am not saying we definitely should do it, but I also don't think it should be off the table completely. Now... of course, if we can get whoever we are targeting at 3-5 without trading him - of course, then it's a moot point, just spare the extra draft capital if you love that specific prospect that much and if you think he can be THE guy.

I just can't get with the strategy of being a treadmill team until you get lucky enough to land a generational or near generational talent.

Build your team around what you have. Organically raise everyone's value through success, and if it becomes clear there isn't enough you sell it before the value tanks completely

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The new CBA also likely shortens the windows of contention... especially for teams without top 5-10ish talent.

This is part of the reason I think exploring trading Lauri is not as insane as some seem to think. This new CBA even more than previous CBAs incentivizes and rewards teams that have the best possible 1-2 punch. So the question we should be asking ourselves is - is Lauri that guy? Is he a 1 or a 2 on a championship contender? Honestly ... I don't know. Maybe he is? Or maybe he isn't... And I don't think the answer is as clear as some suggest... How certain are we that this is the new Lauri? How certain are we he won't regress to ... somewhere between his previous seasons and last season? How certain are we that when we actually are fighting for something and when the lights are brightest he will still shine?

Again... I am not saying we definitely should do it, but I also don't think it should be off the table completely. Now... of course, if we can get whoever we are targeting at 3-5 without trading him - of course, then it's a moot point, just spare the extra draft capital if you love that specific prospect that much and if you think he can be THE guy.

I think Lauri can be with the right 1 or 2... but it will have to be someone at least on his level or better. Kind of a 1a and 1b type of thing... and the supporting cast will have to be GREAT.

Guys that get to their second max will need to be really good. Now the new CBA is more spendy but you can be over the second apron and still retain your guys... that is where a small market having a **** ton of picks to get cheap production is ideal. I also think there will be teams forced to offload sub-AS parts and guess what teams can take those guys? Teams with draft assets!

If anything picks are MORE valuable in this environment as teams will need flexibility and the ability to reload to replace guys in the mid-tier that may get too spendy. The financial penalties are something you can deal with... the FA acquisitions, trade restrictions, and draft picks moving to the end of first round etc are what will hurt most.

 

[gomretat]

I agree... but pre-trade we were willing to be in a rebuild. Lauri and Walker caught everyone by surprise.

Its not about collecting assets but adding to the value of the potential to win the most games long term. If someone offers 120% of FMV for our star... we should pass... if they offer 150% or 200% you take the deal.

And it was questionable at the time. Giving up two all stars who have plenty of gas in the tank is high risk at best. It would have been very easy to get good assets and build around one of the two and with this years playoffs we could have made some noise. We whiffed on that and then got very lucky with Kessler and Lauri. Let's get back to using logic and winning instead of trading away good players for future unknowns.

 

[Flc]

link?

Come on man, there's 15 hits in Google when you type "Lauri Ainge house" - here's the top one: https://hoopshype.com/rumor/lauri-markkanen-has-already-bought-a-place-in-utah/

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

And it was questionable at the time. Giving up two all stars who have plenty of gas in the tank is high risk at best. It would have been very easy to get good assets and build around one of the two and with this years playoffs we could have made some noise. We whiffed on that and then got very lucky with Kessler and Lauri. Let's get back to using logic and winning instead of trading away good players for future unknowns.

It really wasn't high risk at all. It was super smart and we cashed in... it could be called luck/fortune... but the bets paid off in year one before we have realized even one of the future facing high upside assets. The risk is keeping those guys on huge contracts (Gobert specifically) and trying a different spin to a flawed formula with little flexibility or assets.

Again... I am not saying we should trade Lauri... I'm not saying the Blazers would offer what we want. But #3 and one or two future firsts with Simons is absolutely something the anti-blow it up crowd would rail against and could payoff quicker than we think and have huge upside down the road. That's the type of offer it would take.

 

[gomretat]

It really wasn't high risk at all. It was super smart and we cashed in... it could be called luck/fortune... but the bets paid off in year one before we have realized even one of the future facing high upside assets. The risk is keeping those guys on huge contracts (Gobert specifically) and trying a different spin to a flawed formula with little flexibility or assets.

Again... I am not saying we should trade Lauri... I'm not saying the Blazers would offer what we want. But #3 and one or two future firsts with Simons is absolutely something the anti-blow it up crowd would rail against and could payoff quicker than we think and have huge upside down the road. That's the type of offer it would take.

It was definitely high risk. Odds of getting players that good again is a gamble. And there were tons of options in building around one of them. Using Ainge logic it is time to blow up the Celtics. People who love loosing just so we can build assets live in a different world than I do. Windows for winning are very small and have a lot of things out of your control like injuries and unpredictability of what happens to other teams like the Bucks, Warriors, and now Celtics this year. When you have good players you have to go for it. I get that Donny and Rudy weren't working but we folded way to fast. If you do a yard sale every year when things dont go well you end up in a constant spin.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It was definitely high risk. Odds of getting players that good again is a gamble. And there were tons of options in building around one of them.

It really isn't and history is starting to really be on the side of the big star trades not working out and being a huge win for the team getting the picks and players. Clearing the amount of space, getting the players we did, and the enormous amount of picks is a risk adverse strategy... its diversifying the portfolio.

Using Ainge logic it is time to blow up the Celtics. People who love loosing just so we can build assets live in a different world than I do. Windows for winning are very small and have a lot of things out of your control like injuries and unpredictability of what happens to other teams like the Bucks, Warriors, and now Celtics this year. When you have good players you have to go for it.

There are like 5-7 teams that have hamstrung themselves with this logic. Soooo many teams move to the all-in group that moving the other direction was the smart move. This isn't hindsight either... I was on this corner before the Mavs series.

I get that Donny and Rudy weren't working but we folded way to fast.

It was timed perfectly. Both of those guys are worth less than what we sold them for.

If you do a yard sale every year when things dont go well you end up in a constant spin.

Its not a yard sale if you sell your **** for 150% of what you bought it for... that's the difference.


Again if its Lauri for #3... a deal I think Porty would do... Its a no thanks from me. If its Lauri for #3+Simons+picks.... at some point as much as you don't want to do it... its the smarter bet.

The much better route would be to keep Lauri and build around him and Kessler and use some of our draft capital to move up or just hope to hit home runs in the draft/FA. But if the front office doesn't think that can get done AND there are no sellers (Toronto, Brooklyn, etc.) there may end up being a super premium. I love my house but if someone offers me 150% of what FMV should be I will be calling the movers.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

And Boston shouldn't sell off Brown right now... lol... they have a finals team. When we sold we had a second round sometimes team that hated each other.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Toronto is a team that should absolutely sell off some pieces. Likely should have done it at the deadline this year.

You'd rather be a year early on these types of deals than a year late... we were right on time doe.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I also don't get how people arent absolutely excited about how good Lauri can be. There's more Lauri trade talks than building around Lauri talks and that's lame af. Lauri is like Butler imo where he might not be a top 10 players but I think he has the potential to raise his level of play to that of a top 10 player. Can't wait to see him in the playoffs (on the Jazz).

 

[Elizah Huge]

Detroit is actually a really interesting trade down team for us. They are limited with the future picks they can trade due to owing one of their firsts to New York with protections. They are a team who could use some tradable firsts.

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

Pre-mavs series I was saying we should consider a blow it the hell up trade. You don't want to just trade Rudy and be at Don's mercy. Lauri the convo is different because I think he'd stay for 7-10 years.

I think the tipping point is Scoot, Simons, and a future unprotected pick - if they go over you have to say yes. If that is the offer you have to consider it but could rationalize passing on the deal. They should not offer what it would take... but Minny/Cleveland shouldn't have either.

And I was saying it right after we lost that series, but was thinking it during that horrible ordeal of a season.