What's new
By:

If Quin and the Jazz players want to save Joe Ingles

fallenchicken said:
You're threatening to assassinate Joe Ingles if the perimeter defense doesn't improve?
Click to expand...
Danny Ainge is. It’s the modern-day equivalent of “Save Toby,” which is fitting because of The Office connection.
 
The Fresh Prince said:
Sounds like a plot to a Harrison Ford film.
Click to expand...
This one?

YP0ZUKi.png
 
infection said:
Danny Ainge is. It’s the modern-day equivalent of “Save Toby,” which is fitting because of The Office connection.
Click to expand...
The article posted in the trade deadline thread sounded like Joe was saying.... "I love all my guys no matter what.... but **** that new guy Ainge if he trades me!" @Jingled nailed it too.... it sounded like when Ricky was on the block.

If they trade Joe I understand if we get something really good... if it is to save so more shekels so that Ryan can buy the local bowling team I will be pissed.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
The article posted in the trade deadline thread sounded like Joe was saying.... "I love all my guys no matter what.... but **** that new guy Ainge if he trades me!" @Jingled nailed it too.... it sounded like when Ricky was on the block.

If they trade Joe I understand if we get something really good... if it is to save so more shekels so that Ryan can buy the local bowling team I will be pissed.
Click to expand...
The pertinent questions that need to be asked would be:

1. Is there something out there that’s a meaningful enough upgrade that we grab for expiring salary and a draft asset we only kinda have.

2. If it’s purely a luxury tax thing, in what way does it benefit Ainge to make non-basketball trades? He’d have to sit this one out and let JZ be the bad guy. I don’t see Ainge getting aggressive and cut-throat over shekel saving. He’s not volunteering his retirement to be a finance guy.

3. If it’s purely a tax thing, would Ryan push for that now knowing that (presumably) we shut down Joe being dealt over the off-season for a basketball (and financial?) move, whereas now it’s purely financial? Of course, it could have been declined knowing there was time to somehow address the issue, and this deadline being where push comes to shove.

In the event of #1, it conflicts with #s 2 and 3. Meaning that if we’re offloading Joe as an expiring, then it’s likely in return for longer-term salary and further tax concerns in following years. If that’s the case, then there’s a huge emotional hurdle to also clear to only have the same issues later down the road (rather than the relief of Joe’s expiring deal). Unless you were trading Joe to a non-contender in exchange for another expiring they don’t need (like a Gary Harris or Thad Young [not necessarily them but you get the idea]). In that case, I think we could make a list of those guys and I’d be curious if there are really any upgrades in what we need in that pool.

If there’s a basketball move to be made, I’d see Clarkson as being the more obvious choice, even if Joe (physically) is the weakest link. Clarkson’s money is tied up beyond this year, making it easier to accept back a multi-year deal. We would also likely only move Clarkson in a basketball move, so it’d be for some level of an upgrade. I just see too many hypothetical problems in a Joe trade and if it’s a pure dump then the optics of buying Real Salt Lake and letting someone like Joe go would be bad. But again, I don’t think Ainge is spending his time or cashing in on relationships to facilitate a money-only deal when he’s just taken the reins on a team he’s looking to move over the top.
 
Clarkson/Bogey always made more sense in a trade than Bogey, and based on what we've seen this year the debate between the two is not even a question.
 
I dont think Smith cares about the tax if we are contending. If they make a move that is solely based upon salary it means he has given up on this year. It wont surprise me to see us use the exception if it takes us closer to the promised land.
 
infection said:
The pertinent questions that need to be asked would be:

1. Is there something out there that’s a meaningful enough upgrade that we grab for expiring salary and a draft asset we only kinda have.

2. If it’s purely a luxury tax thing, in what way does it benefit Ainge to make non-basketball trades? He’d have to sit this one out and let JZ be the bad guy. I don’t see Ainge getting aggressive and cut-throat over shekel saving. He’s not volunteering his retirement to be a finance guy.

3. If it’s purely a tax thing, would Ryan push for that now knowing that (presumably) we shut down Joe being dealt over the off-season for a basketball (and financial?) move, whereas now it’s purely financial? Of course, it could have been declined knowing there was time to somehow address the issue, and this deadline being where push comes to shove.

In the event of #1, it conflicts with #s 2 and 3. Meaning that if we’re offloading Joe as an expiring, then it’s likely in return for longer-term salary and further tax concerns in following years. If that’s the case, then there’s a huge emotional hurdle to also clear to only have the same issues later down the road (rather than the relief of Joe’s expiring deal). Unless you were trading Joe to a non-contender in exchange for another expiring they don’t need (like a Gary Harris or Thad Young [not necessarily them but you get the idea]). In that case, I think we could make a list of those guys and I’d be curious if there are really any upgrades in what we need in that pool.

If there’s a basketball move to be made, I’d see Clarkson as being the more obvious choice, even if Joe (physically) is the weakest link. Clarkson’s money is tied up beyond this year, making it easier to accept back a multi-year deal. We would also likely only move Clarkson in a basketball move, so it’d be for some level of an upgrade. I just see too many hypothetical problems in a Joe trade and if it’s a pure dump then the optics of buying Real Salt Lake and letting someone like Joe go would be bad. But again, I don’t think Ainge is spending his time or cashing in on relationships to facilitate a money-only deal when he’s just taken the reins on a team he’s looking to move over the top.
Click to expand...
The financial move would not be a purely financial move... it would be a semi-lateral move that saves a bunch of money. It will not be sold as that type of move though... for example say we moved Joe for Garrett Temple with some cap wizardry.... It would be sold as "hey we needed a defender and a guy that has a deal for next year... there is no money component to this trade... but if there was please remember we are a small market team and if we don't make money then the team moves to Vegas the next day.... yada yada yada" You need to use Locke's voice in your mind when reading that.

I don't think there is a good enough match so I am still 50/50 ish on anything happening. If Joe continues to struggle a bit (like he has last couple games) then it becomes easier to do the "meh" basketball trade that saves Ryan all teh monies... Ainge gets to use his commission to hire all his grandkids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top