Should The Jazz Target Zach Lavine?

[SoberasHotRod]

I would love this iteration to be contending at one point. But reality of things is that we dont know if we can ever find/develop the guys we need, before the clock runs out on them.

However I'm not worried about "sitting on the draft picks inevitably", since they are equity that doesnt lose value. If we convert that equity to players, then we should be more worried about losing that value. I would rather gamble on developing the stars internally from the prospects we have (or will have) than use the assets to upgrade any positions marginally.

I guess it comes down to whether I think Lavine is going to be able to be "that guy", and I dont. And if he isnt, then we are still in the same position after trading for him: looking for "the guy". So he is good but not good enough. If I were to use our assets to take a gamble on a high profile player (non superstar) who isnt going to be the #1 guy then I would find the best playmaker possible and hope he unlocks new levels for Lauri and Kessler. And Lavine isnt that either.

I completely agree with your last paragraph, well said.

I don't agree that picks don't lose their value. At some point we will not have enough roster spots or development time for all of our draft picks. I think this problem could arise as early as the 2015 draft, so we likely need to use some of our assets as early as next year before they lose some value.

 

[HermanG]

I completely agree with your last paragraph, well said.

I don't agree that picks don't lose their value. At some point we will not have enough roster spots or development time for all of our draft picks. I think this problem could arise as early as the 2015 draft, so we likely need to use some of our assets as early as next year before they lose some value.

Yeah I meant the picks dont lose the trade value over time. But you are obviously correct that you need to churn through too many prospects if you intend to use them all by yourself. OKC is actually great proof of that right now. They have had too many picks and seen too many good/potential prospects... and they gotta make some tough cuts now that they might end up regretting big time.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Yeah I meant the picks dont lose the trade value over time. But you are obviously correct that you need to churn through too many prospects if you intend to use them all by yourself. OKC is actually great proof of that right now. They have had too many picks and seen too many good/potential prospects... and they gotta make some tough cuts now that they might end up regretting big time.

You lose some leverage in trade negotiations when other teams know you need to move picks. It probably doesn't reduce the value by a lot, but at least by a little. There is also the possibility that Cleveland and Minnesota turn in to amazing teams and tank the value of their picks.

 

[HermanG]

You lose some leverage in trade negotiations when other teams know you need to move picks. It probably doesn't reduce the value by a lot, but at least by a little. There is also the possibility that Cleveland and Minnesota turn in to amazing teams and tank the value of their picks.

Well there I do disagree a bit. I dont think the picks are valued that highly as they are (maybe in the early 20s level)... so there is way more to gain from the possible collapse of either team than there is to lose from them becoming amazing. Maybe they are peak value right now though, since Minny did give us the 16th pick last year. But I'm not sure someone would expect that to happen next year as well.

 

[silesian]

I don't agree that picks don't lose their value. At some point we will not have enough roster spots or development time for all of our draft picks. I think this problem could arise as early as the 2015 draft, so we likely need to use some of our assets as early as next year before they lose some value.

In June 2024, how many teams are clamoring for a 2024 pick vs a 2028 pick? Executives may be gone in 5 years and they are paid to win sooner rather than later.

All else equal, next year's pick is worth more than future year's picks.

The "value" is what it is worth to other teams, they don't care about our roster issues.

 

[Flc]

Simple flow-chart:

Is Zach Lavine a top ten player in the NBA?

No.

Does Zach Lavine appear likely to be a top ten player in the next four seasons?

No.

So there’s the answer, unless the deal is so lopsided for the Jazz it’s a no-brainer.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Simple flow-chart:

Is Zach Lavine a top ten player in the NBA?

No.

Does Zach Lavine appear likely to be a top ten player in the next four seasons?

No.

So there’s the answer, unless the deal is so lopsided for the Jazz it’s a no-brainer.

So the Jazz will never make a trade

 

[jaytulao]

well, if we got John Collins for peanuts, i'd gladly give a peanut and a half for Zach

 

[Dunkqvist]

Only as a piece for almost instant follow up trade. After watching him 3.5 seasons (as he was coming back from the knee injury the first part of 2017-18) I think he can create his own shots and score, but his bbIQ is so low and his defense instincts are abysmal, and sometimes also the effort, that I would hate to watch him regularly again.