There’s a ******** of room to improve because the Jazz are a ****ing disgrace right now but that still wouldn’t come close to contention.Their two stars could stop being assholes to each other and they'd improve dramatically.
There’s a ******** of room to improve because the Jazz are a ****ing disgrace right now but that still wouldn’t come close to contention.Their two stars could stop being assholes to each other and they'd improve dramatically.
This is trueTheir two stars could stop being assholes to each other and they'd improve dramatically.
1. He would bring more in trade.If I were gm and Gobert came out and said he didn’t want to play with Mitchell anymore, I’d trade Mitchell the first opportunity I had.
But also…1. He would bring more in trade.
2. I think it would be easier to replace what Mitchell does and I don’t think you need to replace him with just one player.
3. IMO we’d have more assets to make other trades to have a easier rebuild process.
It can be tricky in its own right. You need to put athletic two way players around him, and its hard to find just one guy who can shoot defend and athletic.Gobert is a defensive unicorn type, you don’t find guys like him all the time. I like the idea of building a team around a generational defensive talent
Agree with that. Pretty sure a trio Lavine/ Mike/ Gobert could be a very good. option.I’ve said it before, my best-case scenario for a Mitchell trade is Dame. Jazz are essentially getting the more mature, clutch, Utah-loving version of Donovan who also happens to be taller and a better passer, and fits that timeline perfectly. Only real concern is how many years he wants on his extension.
LaVine is another interesting option depending on how the Bulls finish out. If they decide they don’t want to pay him his next max contract a swap of Mitchell and LaVine makes some sense for both teams. LaVine works next to Conley and Mitchell works next to Ball and DeRozan. LaVinr would have to agree as a sign and trade and the Jazz would need to send some other players out as they’d be hard-capped.
If you just compare pure stats yes but Dame is better in clutch, more experienced and better decision maker. Plus it could solve chemistry issues we have.How in the hell does trading Mitchell for Lillard help at all? They’re almost the same player?
Just no.If you just compare pure stats yes but Dame is better in clutch, more experienced and better decision maker. Plus it could solve chemistry issues we have.
Yes, thank you. I would prefer getting a 6-5 and up athletic young talent with upside then get Lillard, just another Mitchell type and continue to get around the same results, that would just be insanity.This Lillard talk needs to end. The dude is about to turn 32 and is no longer a better player than Mitchell. You don't trade Mitchell for an older worse version of himself. That is just stupid so stop mentioning it.
This Lillard talk needs to end. The dude is about to turn 32 and is no longer a better player than Mitchell. You don't trade Mitchell for an older worse version of himself. That is just stupid so stop mentioning it.