2023 Trade Rumors and Gossip Involving the Jazz

[infection]

Was it a bad move. Cost a couple firsts but we got one back… realize it was in part because we offloaded other guys but without Conley that deal ain’t happening. 1 first and some opportunity cost for what we got ain’t bad at all imo.

The Conley move was fine in isolation for that time. The problem wasn’t really Conley, the problem was that DL “kept the powder dry” far too long, not acknowledging the coming cap crunch, and ended up pulling the trigger on Conley when he was the only option left before that crunch. Then we went hog-wild dumping any potential tradable asset for, well, I have no clue.

 

[TheStormofWar]

The Conley move was fine in isolation for that time. The problem wasn’t really Conley, the problem was that DL “kept the powder dry” far too long, not acknowledging the coming cap crunch, and ended up pulling the trigger on Conley when he was the only option left before that crunch. Then we went hog-wild dumping any potential tradable asset for, well, I have no clue.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[KqWIN]

Was it a bad move. Cost a couple firsts but we got one back… realize it was in part because we offloaded other guys but without Conley that deal ain’t happening. 1 first and some opportunity cost for what we got ain’t bad at all imo.

In a hindsight 20/20 view it was imo, because Conley never materialized in the playoffs….but you could argue that was due to injury. That may be fair/unfair considering we traded for a an aging, injury PG so you can’t be shocked if his body didn’t hold up.

OTOH, I think it was a mistake to invest so much into pairing Mitchell with a “PG” and that is something we should have known at the time. Especially considering we had basically the ideal “PG” already on the roster to pair with Mitchell.

It wasn’t a terrible move, but I didn’t like the move when it happened (pushing some chips to the center was a good idea bet on the wrong guy). In any case, definitely not the move that caused failure from the Gobert/Mitchell Jazz. It was a string of failures that led to their demise.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yep. I hated the Conley trade but what really sunk the jazz was Udoka pick and using the MLE on Favor and Gay when there were younger players on the market that made more sense. Replace Dok with Bane or McDaniels and Favors with the stretch big that we should have gone after in Bobby Portis and I think we may already have a championship right now.

What sunk the Jazz is that their best players failed to close games when they had an opportunity to do so and health

 

[KqWIN]

Yep. I hated the Conley trade but what really sunk the jazz was Udoka pick and using the MLE on Favor and Gay when there were younger players on the market that made more sense. Replace Dok with Bane or McDaniels and Favors with the stretch big that we should have gone after in Bobby Portis and I think we may already have a championship right now.

Obviously the Lakers had to use a pick to get off of Westbrooks contract and big part of their rise is AD being healthy, but you also have to credit them for their work on their margins.

1) Even though it had been a major blindspot, they did actually make moves to make a functional team that makes sense fit wise around their stars. The Jazz never acknowledged their mistakes and committed to the tiny, no defense team around Gobert.

2) They absolutely nailed the Austin Reeves draft pick.

3) Schroeder has become an invaluable signing for them for the min.

4) Walker was up and down through the season but he just won them a playoff game. It won’t take picks to get rid of him. Jazz MLE signings were dog ****. Ed Davis, Favors, Gay….that is a horrific run.

5) Rui has been huge for them in the playoffs and cost very little through trade.

If the Lakers win another championship it will be because LeBron and AD are great. But without the good work on the margins they might not have made the playoffs at all. These little moves that don’t take a ton of investment can go a long way.

And this is a common theme with other teams still playing. Isn’t just the Lakers.

 

[homeytennis]

Austin Reaves was an UDFA.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Obviously the Lakers had to use a pick to get off of Westbrooks contract

I’m sorry, this is just not true. For all intents and purposes, they were already off of Russ’s contract. They used the pick to get players (and contracts) that they wanted, full stop.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The Conley move was fine in isolation for that time. The problem wasn’t really Conley, the problem was that DL “kept the powder dry” far too long, not acknowledging the coming cap crunch, and ended up pulling the trigger on Conley when he was the only option left before that crunch. Then we went hog-wild dumping any potential tradable asset for, well, I have no clue.

Yeah I just have a hard time seeing the Conley deal as bad. The net cost was cap space and 1 pick. The injuries sucked but they happen. Whiffing on every other pick and cap exception were bigger problems then draining other picks to offload salary while also not making additions on the margins with second round picks as the capital because you believe Miye Oni would fix the defense. I think the stars flaws also caused us to fail and everything else would have had to break perfect. It was very far from perfect. I just have a hard time saying that was the fault of the Conley deal.

 

[KqWIN]

I’m sorry, this is just not true. For all intents and purposes, they were already off of Russ’s contract. They used the pick to get players (and contracts) that they wanted, full stop.

Sure, I did not mean it that way but I can see how you thought that.

I do disagree, however, with @Handlogten's Heros assertion that we netted one pick back for Conley. Conley's contract was a negative in that trade....so I wouldn't count that as recouped value. Even if you don't think he was a negative we traded Vando, Beasley, NAW, and multiple seconds who were all clear positives so you can't just say we got that pick bc of Conley.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Sure, I did not mean it that way but I can see how you thought that.

I do disagree, however, with @Handlogten's Heros assertion that we netted one pick back for Conley. Conley's contract was a negative in that trade....so I wouldn't count that as recouped value. Even if you don't think he was a negative we traded Vando, Beasley, NAW, and multiple seconds who were all clear positives so you can't just say we got that pick bc of Conley.

It wasn't negative and it was necessary. If we don't have Mike to send to Minny they don't send Russell to LA.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

If you want a good laugh go listen to Locke today. He has no idea how things work. He thinks you can offer 140% raises on extensions and is baffled why no one is talking about it. It is true the extensions can start at 140% but you can only give 8% raises from there. He thinks is 140% each year... when I saw the subject I knew not to listen but couldn't help myself.

 

[KqWIN]

It wasn't negative and it was necessary. If we don't have Mike to send to Minny they don't send Russell to LA.

Eh, players with negative value are moved all the time and the move couldn't have been made without them. Doesn't change the fact that they had negative value.

And again, even if you think Conley was a pure positive there was a lot of other players/assets that were clearly positives so I would not count Conley's outgoing value as a first round pick. No chance in hell we would have gotten a first for Conley outright.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Even if that first wasn't all because of Mike some of it was... and its a higher quality first than we gave up for him so... if the net cost of having Mike is 1.5 late firsts or whatever... its just not a bad deal. The cap mismanagement and signings and picks from then on were a much much bigger problem.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Eh, players with negative value are moved all the time and the move couldn't have been made without them. Doesn't change the fact that they had negative value.

And again, even if you think Conley was a pure positive there was a lot of other players/assets that were clearly positives so I would not count Conley's outgoing value as a first round pick. No chance in hell we would have gotten a first for Conley outright.

Vando, Beasley and the seconds weren't getting that quality of a first either... so net cost is 2 late/protected firsts and a piece of a better first... its just not "bad" for what we received.

 

[KqWIN]

Vando, Beasley and the seconds weren't getting that quality of a first either... so net cost is 2 late/protected firsts and a piece of a better first... its just not "bad" for what we received.

It's not bad from a value standpoint, but I do still think that Mitchell/Conley was a duo bound to fail and that should have been recognized even without hindsight. It wasn't our biggest issue, but I think commitment to the tiny backcourt was indeed a mistake even if the value wasn't bad.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It's not bad from a value standpoint, but I do still think that Mitchell/Conley was a duo bound to fail and that should have been recognized even without hindsight. It wasn't our biggest issue, but I think commitment to the tiny backcourt was indeed a mistake even if the value wasn't bad.

That's the challenge building around Donovan. I think they could have worked around it in some other ways but I'm not sure what deal you do in place of the Conley deal that makes us better. I'm not sure its fair to put the small backcourt issue on the Conley deal as finding a big pg or a sg sized guy with playmaking ability is difficult. You could shift Joe to that role but what wing are you going to get to help the defense? Is it going to make Don play defense or make Rudy a more fungible piece.

I think the flaws of our stars meant we had to put perfect pieces around them to make it work... and even in hindsight I don't see those perfect pieces. If we had one uninterrupted postseason from Conley (injuries, baby making, etc.) maybe it turns out different, but I don't think so.

Adding a couple flexible two way pieces after the Conley deal maybe changes things and you can stagger Don and Mike a bit. I think Quin built a good but slightly gimmicky system that was exposed a bit in the playoffs and he didn't have the roster flexibility or desire to adapt. Conley deal contributed to that but also provided a lot of things we really needed.

 

[Elizah Huge]

If you want a good laugh go listen to Locke today. He has no idea how things work. He thinks you can offer 140% raises on extensions and is baffled why no one is talking about it. It is true the extensions can start at 140% but you can only give 8% raises from there. He thinks is 140% each year... when I saw the subject I knew not to listen but couldn't help myself.

120M per year contracts incoming lmao.

 

[KqWIN]

That's the challenge building around Donovan. I think they could have worked around it in some other ways but I'm not sure what deal you do in place of the Conley deal that makes us better. I'm not sure its fair to put the small backcourt issue on the Conley deal as finding a big pg or a sg sized guy with playmaking ability is difficult. You could shift Joe to that role but what wing are you going to get to help the defense? Is it going to make Don play defense or make Rudy a more fungible piece.

I think the flaws of our stars meant we had to put perfect pieces around them to make it work... and even in hindsight I don't see those perfect pieces. If we had one uninterrupted postseason from Conley (injuries, baby making, etc.) maybe it turns out different, but I don't think so.

Adding a couple flexible two way pieces after the Conley deal maybe changes things and you can stagger Don and Mike a bit. I think Quin built a good but slightly gimmicky system that was exposed a bit in the playoffs and he didn't have the roster flexibility or desire to adapt. Conley deal contributed to that but also provided a lot of things we really needed.

You can put the blame on Don and Rudy....whatever they are also the reason why we were good in the first place so put pieces around them that make sense. The issue isn't that it's anyone's fault, the issue is that Conley did not make sense next to Mitchell and it exacerbated the issues we had. The assets we used to get Conley could have been used to go after a wing. Joe was the perfect backcourt partner for Don, and the fixation on getting a "true PG" to pair Don was bad. I get it, everyone wants a two way wing and these guys are hard to find but that does not mean you hard commit to something that is doomed to fail. The FO never acknowledged the weaknesses of the roster and instead doubled and tripled down on a mix of players that obviously did not work. IMO, it is not enough to approach the situation with an attitude of "well it's hard so lets not try and instead commit to something we know will fail".

To be fair to Conley, there were many opportunities to get good fitting players. It's not like we blew all of our chances to do so by trading Conley. We had plenty of of opportunities to draft/trade for players that we desperately needed but instead sat on our hands. If the former FO had as much desire to get some decent wings as they did backup centers (seriously Davis, Favors, Bradley, Dok.....how is it even possible to piss away so much) we're probably in the playoffs right now with Mitchell+Gobert and looking dangerous. I don't think the FO needed to be perfect to build around Mitchell/Gobert, they just needed to be a little bit better.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It wasn't negative and it was necessary. If we don't have Mike to send to Minny they don't send Russell to LA.

Malik ain't even getting minutes. Jazz probably cost him a lot of money with that trade

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It's not bad from a value standpoint, but I do still think that Mitchell/Conley was a duo bound to fail and that should have been recognized even without hindsight. It wasn't our biggest issue, but I think commitment to the tiny backcourt was indeed a mistake even if the value wasn't bad.

The Jazz lost zero playoff games due to having a small backcourt