Signing the one year tender does not make my point null n void. It is one of the possibilities that would have been available and even if he would have signed the tender (and I believe that was a real possibility if he didn't get a contract for more than 10million per) the Jazz still had the ability to re-sign him as a free agent. And if his game exploded then the Jazz could have offered him more money than anyone.
What's your explanation for early OKC success?
- Thread starter idiot
- Start date
Signing the one year tender does not make my point null n void. It is one of the possibilities that would have been available and even if he would have signed the tender (and I believe that was a real possibility if he didn't get a contract for more than 10million per) the Jazz still had the ability to re-sign him as a free agent. And if his game exploded then the Jazz could have offered him more money than anyone.
CAKAR
Well-Known Member
Yes I do...
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Why can't the Kanter trade be a win-win?
Kanter clearly was the odd man out in the Jazz system. We may well be better off in the long-run without him. We have our center of the future. We have our power forward of the future. We have our small forward of the future. We may have our PG of the future. Now we need to add some more pieces, particularly where we are lacking. Signing Kanter to what he would have demanded, or matching an offer sheet that hamstrung us financially, would not have been in our best interest. We are now free to build the team we want.
Meanwhile, Kanter may well be a missing piece in OKC's championship quest. Good for him, good for them. Both teams can be better off as a result of this trade. I'd rather be better off, even if it made OKC better, than to be worse off, regardless of how it affected OKC or any other team.
I still think we got too little in exchange for Kanter, particularly since it seems that OKC thought highly enough of him to insert him immediately into its starting line up and give him big minutes. I am skeptical that we could not have gotten more out of OKC than we did.
Kanter clearly was the odd man out in the Jazz system. We may well be better off in the long-run without him. We have our center of the future. We have our power forward of the future. We have our small forward of the future. We may have our PG of the future. Now we need to add some more pieces, particularly where we are lacking. Signing Kanter to what he would have demanded, or matching an offer sheet that hamstrung us financially, would not have been in our best interest. We are now free to build the team we want.
Meanwhile, Kanter may well be a missing piece in OKC's championship quest. Good for him, good for them. Both teams can be better off as a result of this trade. I'd rather be better off, even if it made OKC better, than to be worse off, regardless of how it affected OKC or any other team.
I still think we got too little in exchange for Kanter, particularly since it seems that OKC thought highly enough of him to insert him immediately into its starting line up and give him big minutes. I am skeptical that we could not have gotten more out of OKC than we did.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
He was immediately inserted because their starter at C is out for 3 weeks.
.
It could be a win-win or it could be a lose-lose. Most likely both teams got what they wanted and it really doesn't matter.
Because we did not get enough for Kanter. Even if it is addition by subtraction you don't give away players.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Kanter is a better fit in OKC's system than Utah's.
Playing with better players can also make you look better.
Kanter's deficiencies will start to reveal themselves to OKC sooner rather than later.
Utah didn't get as much in that trade as hoped for, but it needed to happen.
Gobert is better than Kanter and is improving at an exponential rate and will probably be knocking buildings over in Tokyo by the end of the season.
Playing with better players can also make you look better.
Kanter's deficiencies will start to reveal themselves to OKC sooner rather than later.
Utah didn't get as much in that trade as hoped for, but it needed to happen.
Gobert is better than Kanter and is improving at an exponential rate and will probably be knocking buildings over in Tokyo by the end of the season.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
So you would rather keep him piss off Gobert and possibly lose them both for nothing? There was a real threat of this happening. Gobert was already showing frustration with his minutes knowing he was outplaying Kanter. Best to nip that in the bud than let it fester. And if you do what needed to happen, by starting and playing Gobert in front of Kanter you would lose Kanter whether he was still on the team or not.
i hope kanter plays well this season so that okc need to max him. they will be screwed then
Sent from the JazzFanz app
Sent from the JazzFanz app
LOL .. this!!!!
One rumor that Gobert wanted to start and all of a sudden there was a real threat that Gobert was going to walk away for nothing. Every player wants to start. The Jazz had the ability to pay both Kanter and Gobert more than any team. All teams have a three or four big man rotation. It could have worked out, but if it didn't work out you trade Kanter or Favors or even Gobert in a year or two depending on the compensation you receive back.
Now before everyone goes crazy that they would never trade Gobert or Favors and keep Kanter you don't know how their development is going to be, injuries that could happen or the compensation you could be offered. For example, we were offered crap for Kanter and took it. What if someone offered real compensation for Gobert. Say a top three draft pick or all star like Lillard in return. It would at least be something to consider.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
How much do you know about Pleiss? I'm guessing not much, and yet you want to make all these definitive statements about how bad this trade was. Truthfully, I think most of the complainers are just pissed that Utah didn't make a move to win-now. I'm sure you would have been happier if we had traded him for dragic, who would have devalued our next pick and likely walked in the offseason. Instead we got a couple of trade chips that can still be used to improve the team at a better time than now. If people could just have enough patience to wait until the offseason, then you'll see the value of what we did compared to burning assets for a rental.
-
At the end of the day, Enes was not on board with what we wanted to do, and he wanted to leave. Under other circumstances, it may have benefited Utah to take a hard stance with Enes, but this was a tough situation without any good options. No point in keeping Enes, unless you continue starting him to maximize his value. At the same time, even kindergartners who accidently glance at the screen during the jazz game, have been asking why our coach is starting Kanter over Rudy. It's been obvious to everyone, including our players, and the longer a situation like that drags on, the more potential to sour team chemistry. Selling low on Kanter is depressing, but losing Rudy because we pissed around with him over Kanter would push me to set the building on fire. Ultimately, we just weren't going to keep all 3 players happy, and we should all be happy that we were able to keep the best 2.
Top 3 pick? Lillard? Really? You think Kanter has this value? Kanter's value is disgruntled Reggie Jackson with expiring contract at best(not a coincidence that they were the main pieces in that trade, their value is pretty close). In picks his value is... well, I guess we know what his value in picks is since nobody else gave us a better offer. OK, let me put it this way - if OKC offered Reggie Jackson for Enes, do you take it? Or do you take the picks?
Please re-read my post. Top 3 pick or Lillard for Gobert not Kanter.
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't do it.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's my bad(that's what happens when one has had 3 hours of sleep in the last 48 hours)... I probably wouldn't do it. Gobert has the value of a top 3 pick that has panned out. With Lillard it's closer, but it seems like finding an elite rim protector is much harder than finding a great point guard, so I don't know... I would have to consider it, though.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
OK he signs the one year tender. To keep him happy, Quin has to start him and ensure he gets 30+ mins. Enes responds by averagng 20/12. Now instead of him wanting $15M as a RFA he says he needs $20M as an UFA with 7.5% raises to stay in Utah. Meanwhile you have a pissed off Rudy, who is STILL coming of the bench. He quietly demands a trade, which the Jazz have to give him; a) because Kanter can't have Rudy chomping at his heels; b) because Rudy wants to start and c) because there's no way in HELL you can afford to keep Gobert in 2 more years.
Salary wise, the Jazz have now set a dangerous precedent. Hayward is going to want more money than Kanter and so is Favors. So the Jazz have all three making $20M each. Sorry, but the minute Kanter opened his mouth and demanded a trade, whether by his own accord or upon the advice of his agent, he's DONE! You don't try to assuage a disgruntled player. Nothing was ever going to be good enough for Enes. He showed he was not a team player, so buh-bye.
I have no doubt he can average close to 20/10 if he gets 30 mins/per for OKC. He could have done that here. But playing Enes 25-30 mins when we know he'll walk is like wasting rotation minutes on Richard Jefferson. Better to use that time to develop another player.