What's new
By:
Filters

Gobert to Minnesota

silesian said:
Was Rudy on the lakers and nets?
Click to expand...
No. Why do you ask? My post was in regard to people looking at a team on paper and putting them right into the finals discussion (someone said that the twolves were bound for the finals now or something). I was simply pointing out that on paper, prior to the start of last year, the lakers and the nets were the favorites. They didn't come close to sniffing the finals and the same might occur with the wolves next season.
 
fishonjazz said:
No. Why do you ask? My post was in regard to people looking at a team on paper and putting them right into the finals discussion (someone said that the twolves were bound for the finals now or something). I was simply pointing out that on paper, prior to the start of last year, the lakers and the nets were the favorites. They didn't come close to sniffing the finals and the same might occur with the wolves next season.
Click to expand...

Might or might not, time will tell. But with 2 top 20 bigs and a rising star having them in the conversation is perfectly reasonable.
 
Shad said:
Who'd they end up trading again if it was Shaq's team?
Click to expand...
Who gets traded doesn't determine anything. If you were to ask me why shaq got traded it was simply because Kobe was younger and was going to be good for longer (and they were correct)
 
silesian said:
Might or might not, time will tell. But with 2 top 20 bigs and a rising star having them in the conversation is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Just like having the lakers and nets in the convo to start last season was perfectly reasonable.
However, vegas has the wolves with the exact same odds at a title as they had the jazz at prior to the trade. The jazz just lost in the first round to a team without their star for a few games so apparently vegas doesn't think much of the wolves.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya what we were talking about is you saying that if the jazz thought Spida was a franchise player that could lead us to a title then they would not look at moving him no matter what. Im disagreeing with that statement. There are scenarios where a team would move their franchise player with potential to win a chip. Like a scenario where a team was offered a better franchise player. And of course if the franchise player is requesting a trade then the team should certainly be accepting offers and considering them.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. Of course unless he's the best player in the league, you would always have someone you would be willing to trade him for. This is NOT what I was talking about, I didn't think I needed to even say this. It's obvious what I meant - we are talking about trading Mitchell for picks or a bunch of lesser assets.
 
fishonjazz said:
Agreed. Just like having the lakers and nets in the convo to start last season was perfectly reasonable.
However, vegas has the wolves with the exact same odds at a title as they had the jazz at prior to the trade. The jazz just lost in the first round to a team without their star for a few games so apparently vegas doesn't think much of the wolves.
Click to expand...
Remind me where Vegas had the Lakers at odds wise to start this last season?
 
Udidthizz said:
I remember hoping the Bulls would beat the Pacers, because I wanted revenge for 97 and was convinced we’d win with hc advantage.
Click to expand...
I remember being conflicted. I wanted revenge and felt like having HC would help. But I also remember being worried about Jordan and the refs…
 
l Abach l said:
It's too painful to revisit those 1998 finals games. In a weird way, I think jazz were the better team in the 97 series and should have won that year had a few unlucky bounces not gone the Bulls way (Malone free throws in G1, Malone not boxing out Tony in G5, Kerr sinking that game winner in G6, refs calling goaltending on Anderson's layup in G6, Russell throwing the worst in bounds pass of all time in G6, etc.)

In 98, horny was playing on one knee, stock was clearly not the same after that early season injury and Sloan had his head up his *** giving Keefe minutes over Morris (and Anderson not playing enough). Add to that the unlucky reffing in G6 and MJ's goodbye tour - it was a *********** of a series that we really had no shot winning.
Click to expand...
I haven’t talked to anyone about this before. But I think we were actually more competitive in the 97 series without HC than in the 98 series w/o.

We nearly stole HC from the Bulls in game 1. Malone instead misses 2 FTs and Jordan nails the game winner. We take game 1? That series might be complete different.

We almost swept our HC stand, winning 3 straight. We head back to Chicago up 3-2? Pressure is on the Bulls to extend the series to 7. Our defense against Jordan during that “flu” game wasn’t good.

Meanwhile, in the 98 series, it never felt like we were “in it.” We should’ve lost game 1. Stockton went insane to win it in OT. ( I remember the game going into OT). Malone didn’t get going until later in the series. We were blown out by 40+ in game 3 or 4. And it just never felt like we could fire on all cylinders. I don’t know if it was the two weeks off from the Lakers series? Or injuries? Jordan being in our heads? Or Pippen/Jordan not having to take 2/5 of our players seriously (Hornacek was on one wheel and Tag/Foster weren’t threats to score)? But it just never felt like we could get on track.

So the 97 series? Felt competitive like we could win any game. While the 98 series just felt bleh. Like we could lose any game. Completely different vibe imo.
 
Bodhi said:
Remind me where Vegas had the Lakers at odds wise to start this last season?
Click to expand...
I dont remember but Im guessing they were right near the top of the league.
 
JORDON,he played the media and league into believing he was retiring so they would send him out a winner, there was no way they were going to let the jazz take his glory.
 
Shad said:
Who'd they end up trading again if it was Shaq's team?
Click to expand...
Give it a rest. You are probably 15 and never even watched Shaq. It isn't even debatable that Shaq was the best player on those championship teams and the reason he was traded instead of Kobe is because he was 32 and Kobe was 26. If both were 26 then Kobe would have been outta there.
 
This Shaq debate in this thread is weird. 2000-2003 Shaq was the most dominant NBA player I've ever seen. Teams had to have 2 extra big men when playing LA because everyone would foul out.

Kobe was a (very very good) discount MJ... Shaq changed the NBA
 
l Abach l said:
This Shaq debate in this thread is weird. 2000-2003 Shaq was the most dominant NBA player I've ever seen. Teams had to have 2 extra big men when playing LA because everyone would foul out.

Kobe was a (very very good) discount MJ... Shaq changed the NBA
Click to expand...
The first 5 mins of this series highlight is him scoring on 3-5 players at the same time. He was so amazing in the early 2000s. Three constants from the early 2000s:

1. Rumsfeld/Cheney would appear on tv to talk about how we were winning Iraq.
2. Some new punk band would appear with one good song and disappear. I would use Napster then Limewire to download songs for free. I was also a stud on MSN messenger.
3. Shaq would crush entire teams. Your hope was that you could throw enough bigs out there to sort of wear him down AND that Fisher, Kobe, Horry, Fox, etc would have off nights. Otherwise, there was no hope in beating the Lakers.


View: https://youtu.be/zP6-IXh2wRo
 
Biased, but I think the Wolves are the most interesting team of the year.

They are literally the perfect NBA team to me. I'd ideally want a better defender than Russell at the 1, but the skill-sets are all so complementary.

I think Edwards will take a huge leap and be better than Donovan Mitchell (on offense and defense). And KAT is the most talented player Gobert has played with. This could be an all-timer team tbh.
 
Some national takes on the trade from the jazz perspective:
CBS Sports: A

“The Jazz had one of the bigger pick deficits in the NBA as recently as Wednesday. They were out two picks due to win-now trades made by Dennis Lindsey, but they’d also traded young players like Grayson Allen and Trey Lyles soon after picking them. Some of those trades were absolutely warranted, but the totality of the strategy made Utah one of the NBA’s oldest teams. Yet in the past 24 hours or so, they’ve managed to add a total of six first-round picks: an unprotected Philadelphia pick from a fairly combustible 76ers team in the Royce O’Neale trade with Brooklyn, four first-rounders from the Timberwolves here, a swap in 2026 and Walker Kessler, who just went No. 22 overall in the 2022 NBA Draft. That’s one of the bigger asset turnarounds in recent league history.” — Sam Quinn
Click to expand...

ESPN: A

“A year ago, I was dismissive of the idea of trading Gobert as an overreaction to Utah’s playoff disappointment. A season later, I think the time was probably right. A first-round playoff exit with Luka Doncic missing the first half of the series was much more difficult to justify, especially with so many teams now capable of using the five-out formula the Clippers developed in 2021 to drag Gobert away from the basket.
It was also worth asking how long Gobert would retain this kind of trade value. He turned 30 last week and has one of the NBA’s largest contracts. The Jazz were surely right to maintain a high price for a Gobert trade, enabling them to avoid seeming desperate yet still take advantage if someone was willing to meet that threshold.” — Kevin Pelton
Click to expand...

Sports Illustrated: A

“Though I’d made an argument for keeping them together, Gobert and Donovan Mitchell had clearly reached their limit as a star tandem. And after some playoff runs that called into question both players’ utility in high-leverage moments, change was inevitable in Utah. The Jazz acquiring such a draft haul for Gobert is a great place to start. This move gives Utah significantly more salary flexibility, a chance to build around Mitchell with picks and vets to move, or the ammunition to begin a more significant teardown.” — Rohan Nadkarni
Click to expand...

The Athletic: B

“This thing has been falling apart for a few years, and Quin Snyder skedaddling for uncertainty was a sign that Danny Ainge and company were ready to break this up. Gobert and Donovan Mitchell didn’t get along, and ownership (for now) chooses Mitchell as the marketable star of the team over Gobert. There are plenty of reasons to justify that, but we’ll save that for another time. As the Jazz tear down a pretty successful but non-contending era of this franchise’s basketball, they now arm themselves with a lot of assets.
The reason the grade isn’t higher right now is we have no idea what is next for Mitchell and this Jazz team. Is Ainge going to send him out too and try to bring in as many rebuilding assets as possible? How much will this team be gutted, and what will that mean for them? The Jazz will say and leak all the right things about retooling the roster around Mitchell, but that’s what you’re supposed to say.” — Zach Harper
Click to expand...

Pretty unanimous that the jazz killed it in this trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top