HermanG
Well-Known Member
Well you got me there. Twice the value was a silly thing to say. But two 2nd rounders and 2 usable players is still better than what we got.
Do you want our pick to convey this year?
- Thread starter SoberasHotRod
- Start date
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Well you did exactly what I said. Dismissed all trades.
Simone is better, cheaper and younger than either Bojan or Burks, and about to be a RFA.
However that was not the Knicks trade that was speculated. That was more based on JC/KO for Grimes and company. Make that trade and keep Simone if you actually prefer young players over picks.
It is not sarcasm. Your entire argument is that the Jazz chose a far inferior deal due to their irrational desire for precisely the kinds of picks they got, that the late firstish were not coincidental and merely the best they could get, but they are specifically targeted. These are far superior trades and now you say imply they are hyperbolic? Or are you saying they could have gotten something marginally better, say a 27th pick instead of a 29th pick? That argument would be at least somewhat reasonable.
The average age of an NBA player is 26, Simone is 28. The Jazz investing significant cap space for a low rotation piece into his 30s does not match our timeline.
Two useful players?
.......Korkmaz was waived.
.......McDermott was salary filler. About 5 ppg this year. Questionable whether he will be in the rotation.
The Jazz got more for Simone than the Pacers got for Hield.
Mongoose
Well-Known Member
Dennis Lindsay says hi
Does he have an opinion on whether or not Simone is young?
Mongoose
Well-Known Member
I was just referencing that he was the GM and made the mistake you mentioned "investing significant cap space for a low rotation piece into his 30s does not match our timeline" a number of times over and over again.
HermanG
Well-Known Member
As I've said many times, my main grief is in the type of return. For future picks there is always an argument that you intend to use them in trades. For young players who are already acclimated to NBA, you are not pushing the timeline as much as you do with rookies. For 2024 picks you either package them for a marginally higher 2024 pick or you add rookies. Or then you have some unorthodox draft day deal lined up where you give away 1 of the picks to get rid of Collins contract or something.
The whole "lost value" argument is speculative and its not even fully quantifiable, but it is supported by history. Contenders are the buyers at the deadline, who are prone to overpaying in a competed market. There were multiple contending teams who didnt get anyone, who were rumored to be after 1 or more of our guys.
But stop diverting attention away from it and answer this question finally:
Did we get the best/only deals or did we prioritize 2024 picks?
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Such a short post with so many egregious blunders.
- 28 is not old even if you try to imply it here
- Simone was just figuring out the NBA, and was already a solid rotational piece, with starter upside. Improved a lot since last year, and it is equally fair to argue he has more leaps to give than that he doesnt.
- His contract remains to be seen, so your "significant cap space" is an assumption that cannot be verified.
I think our Finnish friends have lost their collective marbles this trade deadline.
You said that the 384th youngest player in the league is "young" (71% of the league is younger). I did not say he was old, you (incredibly) said he was young.
You have many embedded assumptions in your argument (Simone is young, he has a lot of upside, Simone is going to get a reasonable contract that would be in the Jazz's best interest to match, other teams made better offers for Simone that they rejected, etc.)
Pointing out the fact that an assumption has been made does not have the effect you think it has. Providing a rationale why your assumption is probably right and why my assumption is probably wrong would advance the debate.
My belief is that Danny had a point-of-view about the potential market value range that Simone was likely to command (talking to agents, GMs, etc.), realized that it was likely that Simone was going to command more $ than we were willing to pay, compared the probability that the Jazz would match, and decided to capture the value with a draft pick. This happens all the time in the NBA. Could I be wrong? absolutely. Assumptions about the future can indeed be verified, we just need to let the clock run and see what happens.
Been through this before but I'll give it one more try.....
Were there better offers that would have helped the team more than the one Danny accepted? I tend to think Danny knows more than I do about this so I'd say that it is highly unlikely that he had a bias so strong for 2024 draft that he would reject better offers. Picks in the upcoming draft historically have more value than later drafts, partially because GMs like to keep their jobs, partially because fans are impatient, and partially due to the "time value" (a win this year is more valuable than a win in 5 years). So the idea is not crazy.
The crazy part is the expectation that this would be much more than a "tie breaker" between similar value offers.
Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than an unprotected 1rst from the Warriors 2025? probably not. Danny would probably take the Warrior's offer
Would a well defined 2024 late first be worth more than highly protected 2027 pick from the Nuggets? Probably. Danny would probably reject the Nugget's offer.
The problem is that you have nothing but guesswork that better offers were available and guesswork is the entire foundation of your argument.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
To you what were the other options?
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Your side of the argument is as much guesswork as mine. You base yours in trusting the FO, I base mine on history and commonly accepted beliefs.
Besides, my argument doesnt even contradict the fact that the FO is driving the best interests of the club. Getting 2-3 rookies is gonna help with the cap going forward and provide trade chips if you deal with teams who are looking to tank.
Its just that all the other options (including keeping Simone) provide more support that the build up is about to commence.
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Yes.
HermanG
Well-Known Member
Future picks (can hold on to them longer for trade purposes) or young players who are closer to useful than next years rookies were options that I would have preferred to target.