Gobert for Sacramento's #8 and baggage.

[Stoked]

You need vets who can play and aren't worse than your young guys. Bringing in Tinsley, Watson etc has not worked.

True, but Williams has not hurt. But this idea that "vets = bad" is foolish. If the vet is not as talented then they are reserves. Point is that a few vets can help this team, Jazz will need a steady hand. Just need a coach that will use them right.

 

[framer]

I think Sacramento is looking for solid veteran for the #8, not a project like Gobert. I think Houston could be a viable trade partner for Sac, with Asik/Lin + #25 for the #8.

What does Houston want with the #8 pick? Their window is right now. If they are trading Asik or Lin, they need a vet that can contribute right away, preferably a defensive piece on the wing to help compensate for Harden. Gordon will be a defensive stud, but not this year and he won't slip to #8

I'm not too worried about Gobert "blowing up". He will be a nice piece and that's it.

Also, there is no way Sacrmento does this. This trade is equal to the GS trade, except there isn't a FA Sac really wants, the 8 pick is a good pick and Gobert is a nothing right now.

You'd probably have to do Kanter, Burks for #8, Terry, Landry, and Williams. I'd fight for another future first in 2016 or 2017. Then I'd consider doing it, and I'd definitely do it if I knew I could get a top 3 pick.

For starters, Sac wants to resign Thomas, this deal allows them to do so and still have wiggle room to add a couple of midlevel pieces that fit better than Terry, Landry, and Williams. Gobert looks really good on that team. It also gives them flexibility at the deadline if they have cap room to cash their assets into decent vets that compliment the rest of their team. They have enough young assets, they need to retool their roster if they want to have any hope of attracting any experienced talent to work with Cousins. They also have no need for Kanter or Burks and we would be fools to take their trash and give those players up. The fact that they are willing to do a one year rental on Love shows that they are motivated to move contracts. Think of how much better the Clippers were when they finally stopped stockpiling young talent and started adding pieces. The first step to this is clearing away their junk. We may be able to help here.

 

[framer]

Terry and Williams are expiring. Rudy Gay is also expiring. They've had Thomas for 3 seasons, so they have his Bird Rights and can go over the cap to re-sign him. They won't have to dump much salary, if any, to re-sign Thomas AND stay out of the luxury tax. I see no reason why Sacramento does this.

Because you are spending another year rolling with failure. Remember when we kept going with our same roster two years ago? What did that gain us? That roster was far better than what Sac has now. The number 8 pick isn't going to be a superstar.

 

[GVC]

Because you are spending another year rolling with failure. Remember when we kept going with our same roster two years ago? What did that gain us? That roster was far better than what Sac has now. The number 8 pick isn't going to be a superstar.

So they dump those players for what? Who are they signing? Also, I'd guess both Landry and Williams have positive trade value, and can be moved for real assets. If those players had worse contracts, and the Kings were looking to free up cap space to sign someone, they might be willing to part with picks. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Are you saying the Jazz should have packaged Millsap and Jefferson with picks for nothing?

 

[Stifle Tower]

If the Kings don't get Love, this deal would be VERY possible, and the Sac fans would probably endorse it as they are tired of being locked into their current roster situation. The financials fit as long as we waive all cap holds minus Hayward. So we probably wouldn't be bringing Marvin Williams back, but with two new rookies plus Landry and D Williams, I'm not sure we would need him anyway. We could probably throw in #23 to Sac if they screamed too loud, because we certainly wouldn't be bringing in another Rookie plus possibly Neto.

I'd do it. And Marvin isn't needed with the additional pick + players.

I'd do it.

I'd pick Smart and Vonley. I'd be happy.

Not going to get those 2 at #5 and #8.

Vonleh (if he doesn't sneak into the top-4), Smart and Gordon will go 5-7 in some order.

Would be tempting to offer #5 and #8 for a top-3 pick. Milwaukee could bite. Or I like Vonleh and McBuckets. What a bench that would be!

 

[framer]

So they dump those players for what? Who are they signing? Also, I'd guess both Landry and Williams have positive trade value, and can be moved for real assets. If those players had worse contracts, and the Kings were looking to free up cap space to sign someone, they might be willing to part with picks. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Are you saying the Jazz should have packaged Millsap and Jefferson with picks for nothing?

The Kings are in a different place than we were 2 years ago. They HAVE their franchise player. They have a Rudy Gay to go next to him. They have a point guard that they like (if they resign him to a reasonable contract.) They need to manufacture some defensive pieces and a bench. Gobert is a piece that would fit well and his like isn't available in this year's draft. He has way more value to them than he does to us. That 8 pick is likely going to be Randall. The Kings have absolutely no need for him. The pieces that they need can be bought. Terry, Williams, and Landry aren't those pieces. Landry is serviceable, but he is making 6 million per for the next 3 years, at 4 points and 3 rebs a game. Derrick Williams realistically has no value at his current contract level, other than as an expiring.
If this deal happened I would have little interest in our pick next year and would consider sending it back to the Kings at top 5 protected. Kings would likely never use that pick except as an asset. Basically I am interested in this deal as it closes the door on our need to tank as all of our young assets would be in the pipeline a year earlier and allows us to begin building chemistry which is where the Kings should be at as well. It is possible that they could swing a great deal for the #8 pick, but I think a lot of people here are overvaluing it. and would be really surprised if it could be parlayed into a star just on its own.

 

[GVC]

They aren't trading the #8 for Gobert. They don't need to dump those players for cap space. If they want to move those players, they can get assets in return.

 

[framer]

They aren't trading the #8 for Gobert. They don't need to dump those players for cap space. If they want to move those players, they can get assets in return.

If Minnesota bites on the Love thing you are correct, the other pieces have value. If Minnesota does not bite (which I believe they won't) than those extra pieces aren't so valuable. Easy test case.

 

[GVC]

I'd imagine there are teams out there who'd be willing to take on Terry to take a look at Williams. Landry at the MLE is also likely of value to (potential) contenders. If the Kings are just looking to change things up, they can use those players to get picks or other players. They can do better than Gobert for the 8th pick.

 

[framer]

Deng would be ideal for the Kings, they would now have the money to sign him. Lowry wouldn't suck. And If Dallas steps up to sign either, they would have to release almost their entire bench which would be an upgrade for Sacramento. Some of those pieces don't make sense for us, but they do for SacTown because, again, thy have their star. The clock is ticking however.

 

[framer]

I'd imagine there are teams out there who'd be willing to take on Terry to take a look at Williams. Landry at the MLE is also likely of value to (potential) contenders. If the Kings are just looking to change things up, they can use those players to get picks or other players. They can do better than Gobert for the 8th pick.

Nobody is giving up 11 million in assets to "try out" Williams. They might dump 11 million in junk to see if your junk fits better. Wouldn't you just rather have the cash if you were Sacramento to buy what you want and not hassle with taking on someone else's junk? That is what got them to where they are at. At some point you have to break that cycle. Also don't you want to build your roster while you still have Gay to see if he is a piece you want to keep? I know I would.

 

[GVC]

Nobody is giving up 11 million in assets to "try out" Williams. They might dump 11 million in junk to see if your junk fits better. Wouldn't you just rather have the cash if you were Sacramento to buy what you want and not hassle with taking on someone else's junk? That is what got them to where they are at. At some point you have to break that cycle. Also don't you want to build your roster while you still have Gay to see if he is a piece you want to keep? I know I would.

Teams with cap space don't have to send back salary. I wouldn't mind the Jazz taking a look at Williams if they strike out in free agency. I'd even be willing to give up a second round pick. It's probably worth mentioning that there are several teams with enough cap space to absorb Terry/Williams/Landry. Some of those teams will strike out in free agency.

What do you think Sacramento can get in free agency that is better than the 8th pick? Do you think Gay and Deng can co-exist?

 

[fishonjazz]

Nobody is giving up 11 million in assets to "try out" Williams. They might dump 11 million in junk to see if your junk fits better. Wouldn't you just rather have the cash if you were Sacramento to buy what you want and not hassle with taking on someone else's junk?

Good point

 

[GVC]

I just find it hard to believe that the best they can do for a decent, moderately priced 3rd big, 2 mid-sized expirings and the 8th pick is Gobert and cap space.

 

[ema]

I don't believe the Kings would give up on 8th pick just to get rid of junk. They could do it another way whenever they want, there will always be teams in the NBA with cap space for such deals. Why would they waste a top ten pick in a deep draft.

 

[fishonjazz]

I just find it hard to believe that the best they can do for a decent, moderately priced 3rd big, 2 mid-sized expirings and the 8th pick is Gobert and cap space.

Better point

 

[framer]

Teams with cap space don't have to send back salary. I wouldn't mind the Jazz taking a look at Williams if they strike out in free agency. I'd even be willing to give up a second round pick. It's probably worth mentioning that there are several teams with enough cap space to absorb Terry/Williams/Landry. Some of those teams will strike out in free agency.

What do you think Sacramento can get in free agency that is better than the 8th pick? Do you think Gay and Deng can co-exist?

If I got Deng, I wouldn't care a lick about Gay anymore. Deng is the perfect player to play with Cousins. You have your inside outside scoring punch with Cousins and Thomas, You just need to patch your defensive hole at Center and find a 3 and D at SG. Assuming they have Gobert, they could buy the 3 and D guy with the money from Gay's expiring next year along with bench upgrades and they would be in business.
As far as other teams with salary cap room, Which teams are going to pay 17 million for the right to draft Randall? The Jazz proved that they are crazy enough to do something like that, but it is rare.

 

[framer]

I just find it hard to believe that the best they can do for a decent, moderately priced 3rd big, 2 mid-sized expirings and the 8th pick is Gobert and cap space.

Throw in next year's pick, top 5 protected. Give them the 23rd if you want. If we have the 5 and 8, we won't need it.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Why the heck would Sacramento give up all of that just for Gobert? I'm not even sure Gobert could fetch a late 1st round pick this year. That's not a reflection of his potential, but rather his perceived value. Most of my "NBA Fan" friends who are not Jazz fans don't even know who he is.

 

[green]

Framer's biggest problem is believing Gobert is valuable. He's not. If Sacramento would trade us the #8 pick, we would have to send something proven back, and the only things close to proven we have are Favors and Hayward and Hayward can't be traded. I don't trade either of those for #8.

The next question becomes, are Burks or Kanter valuable enough for the 8th pick.

Would you trade a top 10 pick for two bench guys who don't play defense in a deep draft? Neither do I.

So, the only way we have any shot at #8 is if Sacramento desperately needs cap space. Then it would take Burks, Kanter and taking back deals (Terry, Landry and Williams).

So, your next problem is, what FA out there does Sacramento covet, and covet enough to get rid of two valuable vets, who are great locker room guys, something Sacramento has been sorely lacking?

In other words, it probably ain't happening.