2023 Trade Rumors and Gossip Involving the Jazz

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

dagger was still the Dok pick and poor use of the MLE's.

This pick still haunts me today. There were two players still on the board that were the obvious next pick. One would’ve been the perfect fit next to Mitchell, the other one would’ve been perfect playing next to Gobert, but somehow Dok found his way to #2 on the jazz big board. Never mind the fact he was in the second round for every other team. Lol

 

[Elizah Huge]

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.

Wait… what?

 

[KqWIN]

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

Perimeter defense was by far and away the biggest factor in the Jazz playoff failures.

 

[KqWIN]

Wait… what?

I dunno what part you're confused about, but I do not think Conley's contract was positive and certainly not at a first round pick evaluation.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I dunno what part you're confused about, but I do not think Conley's contract was positive and certainly not at a first round pick evaluation.

I don’t understand how Conley was viewed as a negative when the deal doesn’t happen without him and the Lakers best returning asset was from the team that took Conley in the deal.

 

[HeatCheck]

Perimeter defense was by far and away the biggest factor in the Jazz playoff failures.

It's all water under the bridge but a Jrue or Caruso type would've been the ideal fit next to Don.

I'm still very skeptical that Garland and Don are going to be a long term fit in Cleveland, fwiw.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It's all water under the bridge but a Jrue or Caruso type would've been the ideal fit next to Don.

I'm still very skeptical that Garland and Don are going to be a long term fit in Cleveland, fwiw.

Jrue and Caruso would work on one side of the court but neither provides the playmaking we would have needed to supplement next to Donovan. I would have added a guy like that if we could to throw into the mix with Conley and Don if we could though... and limit the minutes we were super small in the backcourt.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

Which wing could we have got with those assets? Which wing was traded at that time that changes things? Which acquisitions did the Conley trade prohibit?

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.

I agree on Joe and wrote as much when Ricky was here. I think it would have had some limitations and Mike added some playmaking and flexibility we wouldn't have had.

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".

I agree with this... but not sure that is the fault of the Conley deal.

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.

This is the view I have. A different deal may have been better but the follow ups were so bad it likely didn't matter. Also if we had nailed 1 or 2 of the transactions that we whiffed on then it may have had a huge impact. Since the value is good on the Conley deal... and its like the 6th or 7th thing down on the list of "WTF went wrong" then I'm not sure we can keep looking back at that deal as bad.

 

[KqWIN]

I don’t understand how Conley was viewed as a negative when the deal doesn’t happen without him and the Lakers best returning asset was from the team that took Conley in the deal.

Negative contracts are involved in trades all the time where the deal could not happen without them. The Timberwolves received incentive to trade Russell for Conley. It was not a 1 for 1 swap for Russell/Conley.

 

[LogGrad98]

Perimeter defense was by far and away the biggest factor in the Jazz playoff failures.

Which was made way way worse by having 2 very undersized guards who couldn't or wouldn't play defense. Gobert couldn't cover for 4 other bad defensive players, especially on the perimeter. Conley and Mitchell lead directly to multiple playoff exits.

 

[KqWIN]

Which wing could we have got with those assets? Which wing was traded at that time that changes things? Which acquisitions did the Conley trade prohibit?

There were many opportunities to get wings and/or more defensive players throughout the years. It's impossible to list all of them and determine if they would have made a difference, but we know 100% that Conley did not make the difference. And like I said, I think the Conley move was bad but not the death nail. Many of these players could have been acquired even after Conley. I don't think Bogey and Clarkson were bad deals....I do think it was terrible management to not move at least one of Conley/Bogey/Clarkson for a different type of player. These guys all helped us, but we had a surplus of certain skillsets and nothing in other areas. But to name a few guys that I feel confident we had the juice to get at different points:

Covington
Powell
D White
Smart
Brogdon
Hart
Markannen

I think there was also a possibilities we put together more assets to go after a player like George/Butler (who I think were both moved twice during this period). I'm not gonna say we could for sure get them, but having more ammo in trades is always better than less. Our investment level into the defensive wing situation was paltry. I do not think Conley prevented us from preventing us from upgrading, but I also think Conley exasperated the problems. If you badly need a wing bc you have Don + Gobert you need one even more if Conley is sharing the court with those two. If it seems difficult to find the perfect guy to fit, I would generally not advise getting guys that make the problem more extreme.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Negative contracts are involved in trades all the time where the deal could not happen without them. The Timberwolves received incentive to trade Russell for Conley. It was not a 1 for 1 swap for Russell/Conley.

So who was extremely valuable then, Vando or Beasley?

 

[NUMBERICA]

It's all water under the bridge but a Jrue or Caruso type would've been the ideal fit next to Don.

I'm still very skeptical that Garland and Don are going to be a long term fit in Cleveland, fwiw.

The big PG/combo guard should’ve been player type 1A for targeting the second that it was clear Mitchell was going to be a star.

(And a true stretch 4 should’ve been the other type to target the second it was clear Gobert was going to be a star. They appeared to put any effort into this but none into the former which was great.)

 

[NUMBERICA]

So who was extremely valuable then, Vando or Beasley?

All reports were their respective values were 2nds and MAYBE a highly-protected 1st combined.

 

[KqWIN]

So who was extremely valuable then, Vando or Beasley?

I don’t think any one player was super valuable. The Lakers got a lot of players in the deal. If you want to say that Conley was actually a positive in the deal, I’m not gonna argue to the death on that point. But it is a little silly to contribute all the value we got back to Conley.

Beasley and Vando were both more valuable trade assets.

 

[default]

I don’t think any one player was super valuable. The Lakers got a lot of players in the deal. If you want to say that Conley was actually a positive in the deal, I’m not gonna argue to the death on that point. But it is a little silly to contribute all the value we got back to Conley.

As I see it, the Lakers wanted Vanderbilt so they had more flexibility where they play AD. The Lakers also wanted more 3 point shooting in Beasley. They wanted a young scorer in Russell. For the Wolves, Russell and Edwards couldn't play effectively together so swapping Russell for Conely who is nearing the end of his deal and is a distributor made some sense, especially when you add NAW for some depth AND the Jazz even gave them their own 2025 unprotected 2nd round pick to sweeten the deal. As for the Jazz, I think it helped the tank, but the value back is unlikely to amount to much in the protected pick. If that pick isn't in the 5-12 range then we likely did the worst of all three teams.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

There were many opportunities to get wings and/or more defensive players throughout the years. It's impossible to list all of them and determine if they would have made a difference, but we know 100% that Conley did not make the difference. And like I said, I think the Conley move was bad but not the death nail. Many of these players could have been acquired even after Conley.

Okay... then why was the deal bad?

I don't think Bogey and Clarkson were bad deals....I do think it was terrible management to not move at least one of Conley/Bogey/Clarkson for a different type of player. These guys all helped us, but we had a surplus of certain skillsets and nothing in other areas. But to name a few guys that I feel confident we had the juice to get at different points:

Covington
Powell
D White
Smart
Brogdon
Hart
Markannen

I think there was also a possibilities we put together more assets to go after a player like George/Butler (who I think were both moved twice during this period). I'm not gonna say we could for sure get them, but having more ammo in trades is always better than less. Our investment level into the defensive wing situation was paltry. I do not think Conley prevented us from preventing us from upgrading, but I also think Conley exasperated the problems. If you badly need a wing bc you have Don + Gobert you need one even more if Conley is sharing the court with those two. If it seems difficult to find the perfect guy to fit, I would generally not advise getting guys that make the problem more extreme.

Butler and George were both moved before the Conley deal. He essentially signed with Miami and we would not have had near enough assets to trade for PG like Clips did.

We could have done maybe Robert Covington when he went to Houston.. but that wasn't some great deal. Out of all those options I think Mike maybe prevented a White deal... and even that could have been completed had we not spent a pick unloading Favs. So of the reasonable and available deals we could have done instead of the Mike deal most are likely not as good or somewhat lateral... and most could have been done anyway.

We have Don and Rudy so you want to get as many good players around them as you can... but beggars can't be choosers. So we took Mike and Bogey cuz that is what we could get done. Still had some room to maneuver from there but that wasn't a failure point at all. I can't call those bad moves or bad deals because we failed to win a title... especially when we thoroughly **** the bed with almost every move after that. The opportunity cost on Mike's deal wasn't all that big in hindsight. The actual cost of cap space, a couple firsts (Bazley and Laravia?), and then getting something back on the back end... Ain't a bad deal for 3.5 years of service he offered. Its basically the same net price we paid for Ricky Rubio... or close to it.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I don’t think any one player was super valuable. The Lakers got a lot of players in the deal. If you want to say that Conley was actually a positive in the deal, I’m not gonna argue to the death on that point. But it is a little silly to contribute all the value we got back to Conley.

Beasley and Vando were both more valuable trade assets.

Russell was the main attraction for the Lakers in that deal. We don't get Russell without Mike. Beasley and Vando and Mike all had second round pick value by themselves... not sure how you can pinpoint Beasley and Vando as more valuable than Mike... Vando maybe but Mike was the best NBA player in the deal... we supposedly had at least one offer from NO for him.

 

[KqWIN]

Russell was the main attraction for the Lakers in that deal. We don't get Russell without Mike. Beasley and Vando and Mike all had second round pick value by themselves... not sure how you can pinpoint Beasley and Vando as more valuable than Mike... Vando maybe but Mike was the best NBA player in the deal... we supposedly had at least one offer from NO for him.

We don’t get the pick if we don’t get Westbrook. Not sure why we keep saying this. Again, guys with negative value get traded all the time. Saying that we don’t get this deal done without Russell is not saying much because you’re also saying that the Lakers did not want Conley. We paid Min extra for the DLO/Conley swap. Idc if you thought he was the best player he was clearly not the best asset in the deal.

And once again, I’m not going to die on this hill that he was negative, but it is ridiculous to say his outgoing value was a first.

The deal initial Conley was bad because we allocated resources to the wrong type of player. The motivation was wrong because we wanted a pure PG next to Mitchell when that is not the player we needed. We set up our stars for failure. You can say these other guys would not have made a difference. We do not know for sure. We do know for sure that Conley did not make a difference.

The Jazz did not have an impossible task. They have several very talented players that teams wanted, Conley included when he was younger. I completed disagree with the notion that nothing could have been done and it is certainly not an excuse to set up your team for failure.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

We don’t get the pick if we don’t get Westbrook. Not sure why we keep saying this. Again, guys with negative value get traded all the time. Saying that we don’t get this deal done without Russell is not saying much because you’re also saying that the Lakers did not want Conley. We paid Min extra for the DLO/Conley swap. Idc if you thought he was the best player he was clearly not the best asset in the deal.

I was referring to we don't get DLo without Conley

And once again, I’m not going to die on this hill that he was negative, but it is ridiculous to say his outgoing value was a first.

I mean I said a piece of a first like 12 times... but its a higher quality first than either one of the ones we gave up so add that to the equation. Its equally ridiculous to think the deal doesn't get done without Mike and that he was a negative.

The deal initial Conley was bad because we allocated resources to the wrong type of player. The motivation was wrong because we wanted a pure PG next to Mitchell when that is not the player we needed. We set up our stars for failure. You can say these other guys would not have made a difference. We do not know for sure. We do know for sure that Conley did not make a difference.

Lol... he made a difference. He helped one of our stars quite a bit... and honestly helped both of them.

The Jazz did not have an impossible task. They have several very talented players that teams wanted, Conley included when he was younger. I completed disagree with the notion that nothing could have been done and it is certainly not an excuse to set up your team for failure.

The rest of the stuff set us up for failure... Conley absolutely contributed to our success. Of course other things could have been done but the Conley deal didn't prevent many of those options if any.