Does Lauri Get Traded?

[fishonjazz]

If we're blown away with a Kessler offer then we should trade him.

If there isn't a good offer, then we shouldn't let "losing a few more games" be a motivating factor to accept a meh offer is my whole point.

There is a another factor.

Let's say we get a meh offer and don't take it and coach and jazz management don't think Kessler is part of the future and so he rides pine a lot gets even less confident and the offers go from meh to garbage. Then maybe we should have taken the meh?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[TheGoldStandard]

If they get a great package, they should trade Lauri. The team is too young and inexperienced to win with Lauri, and the team as constructed is on a different timeline. I am guessing the odd that Utah can trade or sign difference maker players to pair with Lauri would be low, just like they missed out on Bridges (and he is not a difference maker imo, and neither is P George).

If they don't get a great offer, keep Lauri until such an offer happens. I hate to lose him, he is fun to watch.

 

[MT Steve]

There is a another factor.

Let's say we get a meh off and don't take it and coach and jazz management don't think Kessler is part of the future and so he rides pine a lot gets even less confident and the offers go from meh to garbage. Then maybe we should have taken the meh?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

The "meh" is relative to what you think his value is. If you don't think he's part of the future, then sure, accept a lower offer, if it seems worth it given that you don't plan on having him around in the future.

If it doesn't seem worth it, then don't do it anyways just for a ~3% better chance of getting a star next draft.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

My question was to those who are worried about winning a few more games because we will add vets, and therefore think trading Kessler would be a good idea to mitigate that.

You somehow miconstrued that to me saying I myself am worried about winning a few more games. I am not.

Why would that be a viable solution though. If trading Kessler isn’t also a viable solution?

 

[MT Steve]

Why would that be a viable solution though. If trading Kessler isn’t also a viable solution?

Because not adding vets is preferable to trading Kessler for a package that is less valuable to the Jazz than Kessler.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Because not adding vets is preferable to trading Kessler for a package that is less valuable to the Jazz than Kessler.

How so? If we add a vet who adds 4 wins that player is really good… if we trade Walker who represents 4 wins… then we have whatever we got for Walker PLUS the other good player. And since none of it matters to draft positioning then we come out way ahead.

 

[MT Steve]

How so? If we add a vet who adds 4 wins that player is really good… if we trade Walker who represents 4 wins… then we have whatever we got for Walker PLUS the other good player. And since none of it matters to draft positioning then we come out way ahead.

The hypothetical is that we trade Kessler for a package worse than Kessler's value to us.

 

[fishonjazz]

The "meh" is relative to what you think his value is. If you don't think he's part of the future, then sure, accept a lower offer, if it seems worth it given that you don't plan on having him around in the future.

If it doesn't seem worth it, then don't do it anyways just for a ~3% better chance of getting a star next draft.

Agreed.
Totally fair and measured response

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[framer]

I think the "Front Office Hates Kessler" crap is way overblown. I don't think the Jazz are going to trade him for a bag of peanuts, tank or no.

Last year they were quite obviously limiting his minutes to impact winning (or perhaps to see what they had in Collins.) At this point in his career, he probably isn't enough to get you from 40 to 45 wins, but he is enough to get you from 20 to 25 quite easily if you give him burn on the court. I'd imagine that being held out of games to ensure a loss probably didn't go well with Kessler which accounted for some of the moping.

If anyone gets traded for peanuts, it will be Clarkson.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The hypothetical is that we trade Kessler for a package worse than Kessler's value to us.

Yeah if we sign someone that adds 4 wins and trade Kessler who adds 4 wins… even if it’s at 85% of value… then we still have more overall value… big win!!!

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think the "Front Office Hates Kessler" crap is way overblown. I don't think the Jazz are going to trade him for a bag of peanuts, tank or no.

Last year they were quite obviously limiting his minutes to impact winning (or perhaps to see what they had in Collins.) At this point in his career, he probably isn't enough to get you from 40 to 45 wins, but he is enough to get you from 20 to 25 quite easily if you give him burn on the court. I'd imagine that being held out of games to ensure a loss probably didn't go well with Kessler which accounted for some of the moping.

If anyone gets traded for peanuts, it will be Clarkson.

no one said peanuts… lol. You trade him for future value that is in line with his value. Getting 90% of value versus 115% of value doesn’t change our franchise… even if it’s low probability getting a superstar does. If it adds 5-10% to the chances we get our all star I will take the reduction on the price for Kessler.

 

[MT Steve]

Yeah if we sign someone that adds 4 wins and trade Kessler who adds 4 wins… even if it’s at 85% of value… then we still have more overall value… big win!!!

We're signing someone who has the same value as Kessler?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

We're signing someone who has the same value as Kessler?

I mean I would assume so on court since they are adding wins. I mean if Walkers contributions mean very little to draft positioning I assume we would not care at all if the vet was less than that. If we signed them to a 3-4 year deal I assume value would be close since Walker is only cheap for 2 years.

 

[MT Steve]

I mean I would assume so on court since they are adding wins. I mean if Walkers contributions mean very little to draft positioning I assume we would not care at all if the vet was less than that. If we signed them to a 3-4 year deal I assume value would be close since Walker is only cheap for 2 years.

So being much younger and having a much higher likelihood of future improvement over some random vet we can sign are just negligible factors?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

So being much younger and having a much higher likelihood of future improvement over some random vet we can sign are just negligible factors?

Nope… but that’s the awesome thing… those factors would obviously have an impact on his market value… so we would have captured that already at least in part. And again… if he is roughly the same player he was last year his market value tanks… so we’ve insulated ourselves against some loss there.

 

[MT Steve]

Nope… but that’s the awesome thing… those factors would obviously have an impact on his market value… so we would have captured that already at least in part. And again… if he is roughly the same player he was last year his market value tanks… so we’ve insulated ourselves against some loss there.

Yeah I mean, if the Jazz don't believe in him and think this is the best he'll be value-wise, then sure, trade him if you can get value that you think will be better in the longterm.

Just make sure that 3% boost in the "Getting a star in the 2025 draft" odds is only a tiny part of that decision making.

 

[silesian]

Now wolves interested in LM what the hell can they offer us at all they have no 1st round draft picks

Third team required

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah I mean, if the Jazz don't believe in him and think this is the best he'll be value-wise, then sure, trade him if you can get value that you think will be better in the longterm.

Just make sure that 3% boost in the "Getting a star in the 2025 draft" odds is only a tiny part of that decision making.

I mean somewhere between 3-30% based on whatever math you decide to pull out of your *** lol.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think the "Front Office Hates Kessler" crap is way overblown. I don't think the Jazz are going to trade him for a bag of peanuts, tank or no.

Last year they were quite obviously limiting his minutes to impact winning (or perhaps to see what they had in Collins.) At this point in his career, he probably isn't enough to get you from 40 to 45 wins, but he is enough to get you from 20 to 25 quite easily if you give him burn on the court. I'd imagine that being held out of games to ensure a loss probably didn't go well with Kessler which accounted for some of the moping.

If anyone gets traded for peanuts, it will be Clarkson.

You spoke of the front office but then talked about what the coach did. (im not so sure they are on the same page. Front office might like kessler hence no trade. Hardy might not like him hence low minutes)
As for clarkson, the only player that played more minutes than him the last two seasons was lauri. Clarkson played 33 minutes per game in the 22-23 season and 31 minutes per game in the 23-24 season. If the jazz front office or coaching staff dont think much of clarkson then they have a very strange way of showing it.

 

[MT Steve]

I mean somewhere between 3-30% based on whatever math you decide to pull out of your *** lol.

Repeating it yet again:

The 30% was the (generous) math for trading Kessler directly leading us to getting a player a lot better than we otherwise would. And it was generous - realistically it's probably half that.

The 3% was the odds of trading Kessler directly leading to us going from not getting a superstar to getting a superstar. Even that was probably generous as well.