What's new
By:

Trade ideas

I highly doubt Lauri gets moved anytime soon but the return would need to be incredible.

Unfortunately the warchest of picks doesn't really kick in until the '25 draft and they would need to make some major moves between now and then if they have any chance at all getting a rebuild completed while Lauri is still in his prime. Jazz don't even keep their '24 pick unless they are really bad, which seems to be the current path we are on. They could potentially secure a top 3-5 pick in the next draft and then trade a bunch of assets for another star next offseason. It's a small needle to thread while the clock is ticking on Lauri.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Sadly if we do trade Lauri it is likely we are building on guys selected in the next 3-4 drafts rather than configuring things around guys we have. You basically move to ground zero at that point. Key, Giddey, Walker all could be good building blocks but you aren't really making plans around them yet ya know.
Click to expand...

That’s what I was trying to get at just in the wrong words I’m just saying I’d rather watch that team play and suck this season while gaining assets than our current team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Sadly if we do trade Lauri it is likely we are building on guys selected in the next 3-4 drafts rather than configuring things around guys we have. You basically move to ground zero at that point. Key, Giddey, Walker all could be good building blocks but you aren't really making plans around them yet ya know.
Click to expand...
Ainge would be in his 70s by the time we could conceivably be contending.
 
infection said:
Ainge would be in his 70s by the time we could conceivably be contending.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I don't think we should consider the age of the President in our decision making. He could decide he's done in a year or two if he had health issues or whatever.

I would like to see us with some competent guard play before making a huge pivot to see how that works. I'm just looking at the runway with Lauri and thinking we are a couple years away from putting something good enough around him (not to contend but to be a playoff team) and now his prime is starting to shrink. Its doable but the spinning our wheels a bit with pg by committee and the "John Collins Value Improvement Project" don't exactly scream we want to win now. If they think Key is the pgotf there is nothing wrong with getting a vet stopgap.

IDK what is better... being somewhat aimless or taking an extremely long term aim? Hearing Locke simultaneously saying we are coaching for "240 games" while also saying "can't play young guys over the vets or you lose the locker room" is pretty much where we are... and where we are is "we don't know where we are?".
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Yeah... I don't think we should consider the age of the President in our decision making. He could decide he's done in a year or two if he had health issues or whatever.
Click to expand...
We're not making any decisions, though, but he is. It's hard to know what he's thinking. I can't imagine joining the previous #1 seed and then doing a teardown and seeing nothing result from it before stepping out is how he envisioned his capstone on his legacy.

As part of a larger discussion, how do we evaluate NBA executives? When we evaluate players, we're well aware of not taking small sample sizes and generalizing, and we're more cautious on drawing conclusions one way or the other on young guys. What does that translate to for executives? What's the equivalent of "a few games"? What's the parallel to "just one season" for a player? What's the unit of measurement? Because, for me, even 5-7 years for an executive I'd liken to a stretch of a couple months as a player. Ainge won one ring when he moved pieces to pick up two all stars. He made a great deal to sell off two aging guys for a bunch of picks that eventually netted him Tatum and Brown, which made them relevant. Is this representative of a perennial all star player equivalent or THT hot streaks? In terms of building teams, I don't believe anyone gets a large enough sample size to say if them being a good executive was the true independent variable. On the day to day stuff, like when you have an established team and you're having to constantly make moves with role players and tweak things, then those are ongoing things that is easier to accumulate comprehensive data on (for instance, we have a lot of data on what KOC did [nothing] to tweak rosters that were established, and likewise data on DL [again very little] for tweaking established rosters). Currently we're in a situation where DA is building a team. I have no idea whether that's good, bad or neutral. I know it's not technically correct to say that Ainge fell *** backwards into Garnett/Allen trades or that he fell *** backwards into the deal to send out Garnett and Pierce to NJ, but those are two moves that have cemented his legacy and I do wonder how much he's expecting a bailout of some package with a nicely wrapped bow to show up on the door step overnight. It's kind of like trying to draw up a strategy on how to beat team X and someone isn't very interested in actual game plan but says "lol, THT almost dropped a triple double on them last time, we good." That's kinda the approach I feel Ainge is taking.
 
infection said:
We're not making any decisions, though, but he is. It's hard to know what he's thinking. I can't imagine joining the previous #1 seed and then doing a teardown and seeing nothing result from it before stepping out is how he envisioned his capstone on his legacy.

As part of a larger discussion, how do we evaluate NBA executives? When we evaluate players, we're well aware of not taking small sample sizes and generalizing, and we're more cautious on drawing conclusions one way or the other on young guys. What does that translate to for executives? What's the equivalent of "a few games"? What's the parallel to "just one season" for a player? What's the unit of measurement? Because, for me, even 5-7 years for an executive I'd liken to a stretch of a couple months as a player. Ainge won one ring when he moved pieces to pick up two all stars. He made a great deal to sell off two aging guys for a bunch of picks that eventually netted him Tatum and Brown, which made them relevant. Is this representative of a perennial all star player equivalent or THT hot streaks? In terms of building teams, I don't believe anyone gets a large enough sample size to say if them being a good executive was the true independent variable. On the day to day stuff, like when you have an established team and you're having to constantly make moves with role players and tweak things, then those are ongoing things that is easier to accumulate comprehensive data on (for instance, we have a lot of data on what KOC did [nothing] to tweak rosters that were established, and likewise data on DL [again very little] for tweaking established rosters). Currently we're in a situation where DA is building a team. I have no idea whether that's good, bad or neutral. I know it's not technically correct to say that Ainge fell *** backwards into Garnett/Allen trades or that he fell *** backwards into the deal to send out Garnett and Pierce to NJ, but those are two moves that have cemented his legacy and I do wonder how much he's expecting a bailout of some package with a nicely wrapped bow to show up on the door step overnight. It's kind of like trying to draw up a strategy on how to beat team X and someone isn't very interested in actual game plan but says "lol, THT almost dropped a triple double on them last time, we good." That's kinda the approach I feel Ainge is taking.
Click to expand...
It's not that hard to know what Danny is thinking. Locke has been saying it loudly for the past 6 months.
 
The Jazz will probably continue to be bad and Danny will do nothing about it.

They will then decide to use the pick to draft or possibly trade it. If you listen to any national analyst they often talk about how crazy player movement will be in the next few years.

Them they will decide who they can sign and who they can trade for.

Maybe if everything goes wrong and they get shutdown on every move they want to make they tank an additional year for Flagg.
 
I'd like to see the Jazz pick up a guy or two like Jeremy Sochan. If we can't get a premier shooter, I'd prefer guys that play like they constantly have a chip on their shoulder. The Jazz need players that refuse to lose and take it personal. I've seen ENOUGH of Sexton, THT and even Clarkson. I don't know that Lauri has this mentality, but the Jazz desperately need a few guys who take this personal.
 
Conl3y2Rudy said:
I'd like to see the Jazz pick up a guy or two like Jeremy Sochan. If we can't get a premier shooter, I'd prefer guys that play like they constantly have a chip on their shoulder. The Jazz need players that refuse to lose and take it personal. I've seen ENOUGH of Sexton, THT and even Clarkson. I don't know that Lauri has this mentality, but the Jazz desperately need a few guys who take this personal.
Click to expand...
Sexton is exactly the guy you described and he sucks.

Wanting to win and getting mad when you don't isn't enough in the NBA.
 
Conl3y2Rudy said:
I'd like to see the Jazz pick up a guy or two like Jeremy Sochan. If we can't get a premier shooter, I'd prefer guys that play like they constantly have a chip on their shoulder. The Jazz need players that refuse to lose and take it personal. I've seen ENOUGH of Sexton, THT and even Clarkson. I don't know that Lauri has this mentality, but the Jazz desperately need a few guys who take this personal.
Click to expand...
Sochan seems like a really good fit next to Wemby. I can see the Spurs trading out Keldon or their selfish guards but Sochan is probably the one guy they keep.
 
infection said:
We're not making any decisions, though, but he is. It's hard to know what he's thinking. I can't imagine joining the previous #1 seed and then doing a teardown and seeing nothing result from it before stepping out is how he envisioned his capstone on his legacy.

As part of a larger discussion, how do we evaluate NBA executives? When we evaluate players, we're well aware of not taking small sample sizes and generalizing, and we're more cautious on drawing conclusions one way or the other on young guys. What does that translate to for executives? What's the equivalent of "a few games"? What's the parallel to "just one season" for a player? What's the unit of measurement? Because, for me, even 5-7 years for an executive I'd liken to a stretch of a couple months as a player. Ainge won one ring when he moved pieces to pick up two all stars. He made a great deal to sell off two aging guys for a bunch of picks that eventually netted him Tatum and Brown, which made them relevant. Is this representative of a perennial all star player equivalent or THT hot streaks? In terms of building teams, I don't believe anyone gets a large enough sample size to say if them being a good executive was the true independent variable. On the day to day stuff, like when you have an established team and you're having to constantly make moves with role players and tweak things, then those are ongoing things that is easier to accumulate comprehensive data on (for instance, we have a lot of data on what KOC did [nothing] to tweak rosters that were established, and likewise data on DL [again very little] for tweaking established rosters). Currently we're in a situation where DA is building a team. I have no idea whether that's good, bad or neutral. I know it's not technically correct to say that Ainge fell *** backwards into Garnett/Allen trades or that he fell *** backwards into the deal to send out Garnett and Pierce to NJ, but those are two moves that have cemented his legacy and I do wonder how much he's expecting a bailout of some package with a nicely wrapped bow to show up on the door step overnight. It's kind of like trying to draw up a strategy on how to beat team X and someone isn't very interested in actual game plan but says "lol, THT almost dropped a triple double on them last time, we good." That's kinda the approach I feel Ainge is taking.
Click to expand...
I think Ainge is value based. I'm not sure he's some visionary architect. That has worked for him in the past and that is what he's doing now. Even when he traded for Kyrie it was a steal (IT was broken, 1 good pick and Jae Crowder). So the value has to be there in the transaction... but I think last year he lost the narrative a bit not selling Mike with Bogey to LA... I think he really wanted to squeeze the deal... when the biggest asset we could have received was a better 2023 pick of our own.
 
Looking at the landscape who will be the next stars to be traded?

Zach Lavine?

Don Mitchell?

Embiid?

Not really seeing much for the Jazz unless they want to go in on Embiid which could give them a short window with him and Lauri. I'm a little skeptical how long Embiid will be a mvp type though. Otherwise just wait and see if Dallas decides to ever trade Doncic? Might be a cold day in hell before Cuban trades him and they've gotten off to a really solid start this season.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think Ainge is value based. I'm not sure he's some visionary architect. That has worked for him in the past and that is what he's doing now. Even when he traded for Kyrie it was a steal (IT was broken, 1 good pick and Jae Crowder). So the value has to be there in the transaction... but I think last year he lost the narrative a bit not selling Mike with Bogey to LA... I think he really wanted to squeeze the deal... when the biggest asset we could have received was a better 2023 pick of our own.
Click to expand...
If only you could hang banners and hold parades for squeezing a deal.
 
I don't get all the love for Giddy. Sure he would instantly become the best passer on the Jazz but we need 3 things, Passing, Shooting, and Defense. Giddly only brings 1 of these. I have watched enough OKC games this year to know Giddy IS NOT a good defender. I have seen plays he doesn't even really try.

I agree the Houston pick is the crown jewel. Getting our pick back might be good.
 
infection said:
If only you could hang banners and hold parades for squeezing a deal.
Click to expand...
Oh man I just got a great dumb idea. We throw a “Draft Asset Treasure Chest Championship” parade and make it a dumb publicity stunt.
 
If we trade Lauri and go scorched Earth obviously we are losing for a few years at best. When we finally get lucky and land a player of his quality to build around is everyone cool cheering for Las Vegas Jazz?
 
Ron Mexico said:
If we trade Lauri and go scorched Earth obviously we are losing for a few years at best. When we finally get lucky and land a player of his quality to build around is everyone cool cheering for Las Vegas Jazz?
Click to expand...
It would suck and attendance would suffer but the whole narrative that the team can't handle losing situations or it will move is just not it. We could suck and it would be like what Houston or Detroit has going right now or it could be like OKC. If there are exciting prospects and hope the fans will still show up. Team ain't going nowhere.

Not saying we should do it... but the team having to move isn't a reason to not do it. I heard fans sell this nonsense when it came to luxury tax and the Millers too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top