Locke reported that the Jazz wanted a different Euro (not Tibor) but they did not have leverage in the deal. He said the Thunder are bringing this player over this year. So I presume this is Alex Abrines, who the Thunder just signed to a 3 year deal for ~$6 million per year.
Jazz wanted Alex Abrines in Kanter trade?
- Thread starter silesian
- Start date
andylarsen
Well-Known Member
FWIW, it was Abrines. We reported it on SCH at the time.
Abrines is a better prospect than Tibor, to be sure, but OKC was basically the only team interested in Kanter. The Jazz wanted something in return, as they knew they weren't going to sign him that offseason.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
wutup Andy
Thanks, enjoy reading/ listening to your stuff. I must have missed the announcement at the time. I wonder why David was circumspect about providing Abrines' name since you had already made it public?
Kyoto
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm still happy with the trade. We got better for dumping him for some German peanuts.
andylarsen
Well-Known Member
Eh, they had no leverage, but neither did the Thunder with Reggie Jackson. It's not like they got back a ton for him either. I suspect OKC would have done a straight Jackson for Kanter swap. I do know the Jazz were never particularly interested in Jackson, as they felt Jackson's lack of shooting wouldn't work long-term next to Favors and Gobert. They knew Jackson would want big money too (5 years, $80M)
That's turned out to be a little bit of a mistake because Jackson figured out how to shoot. Back then, he was shooting 27% from 3 and shot 21% and 23% in two seasons before that. They weren't confident that he'd be worth whatever he'd get in FA. The other weird thing about Jackson is that his defensive numbers was and are kind of disappointing, both in OKC and now in DET. He's not a big liability, but less of an impact player than you'd hope for. And of course, there's the Exum thing. Jackson was awful in OKC's locker room, and what if Exum got good and deserved to play over him? It might have gotten ugly.
But let's say they made the trade. They're almost certainly in the playoffs last year, so that's good. They don't have to trade a 1st for Hill (who I think is in the same tier, probably, and IMO Hill's a better fit. But I also suspect IND does a Jackson/Hill swap. We're now on hypotheticals of hypotheticals.), but don't get one back from OKC in the trade. And you have whatever Jackson is worth in this market, which is probably something positive, even at $16M annually.
Anyway, not grabbing Jackson was probably a mistake in hindsight. But I get why DL made the decision he did, and I probably would have done the same then too.
andylarsen
Well-Known Member
P.S.: The real missed opportunity in that deadline was Isaiah Thomas.
framer
Well-Known Member
Are we certain that the Suns wanted anything to do with Kanter though? It appears that they have finally decided that it is probably best if big guys play defense. Sending him Eastern Division was also probably a goal.
Keefe
Well-Known Member
You don't say hi to Dala?
Then why did they trade Reggie Jackson? Did the Thunder sign someone from the Pistons to a max deal?
The only thing that makes sense is the Jazz didn't pursue it at all, or they even suggested bringing in the Pistons.
The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
Trading for Reggie Jackson would have been a perfectly horizontal move.
The problem is that we didn't want to sign an expensive contract for a disgruntled, ball hog, low team chemistry, no defense, me-first player. We weren't going to sign Enes Kanter. Reggie Jackson was equally disgruntled, low defense (perhaps not equally, but close), ball hog (needs the ball in his hands to be effective), me-first player who was going to require a large contract.
Sure, on paper, Kanter for Jackson looks like a lot more value than Kanter for a 1st round pick and a German long Bratwurst with Gingerpubes on it (Pleiss). But, it would have been horizontal since we would be in the same position. The trade we did netted us something for Kanter. PS. Kanter STILL doesn't have value. OKC wanted to trade him all summer, but couldn't.
The problem is that we didn't want to sign an expensive contract for a disgruntled, ball hog, low team chemistry, no defense, me-first player. We weren't going to sign Enes Kanter. Reggie Jackson was equally disgruntled, low defense (perhaps not equally, but close), ball hog (needs the ball in his hands to be effective), me-first player who was going to require a large contract.
Sure, on paper, Kanter for Jackson looks like a lot more value than Kanter for a 1st round pick and a German long Bratwurst with Gingerpubes on it (Pleiss). But, it would have been horizontal since we would be in the same position. The trade we did netted us something for Kanter. PS. Kanter STILL doesn't have value. OKC wanted to trade him all summer, but couldn't.
Last edited:
Elaborate what it "netted us". The ~$4 million thrown away on Pleiss? The two-second rounders jettisoned to be free of another ~3 million owed to him? The ~$10 million (I don't have the exact figure) spent on Kendrick Perkins' buyout? Grant Jerrett's salary?
Until and unless one of the assets amounts to a positive, the trade was complete trash. It's okay to call a spade a spade. And yes, of course Kanter is a turd and there's a net positive to being rid of him. Still doesn't mean it was good asset management (especially since the Jazz bungled Kanter from the beginning). You can explain why the Jazz weren't interested in Jackson, and you can even be right to a degree. But we're talking about a trade that right now the Jazz have LOST assets/resources on, so you'll have to forgive those that see the player Jackson is and can plainly see how the Jazz biffed it. Doesn't mean they always do, doesn't mean critics are haters. On the contrary, if you can't acknowledge that the whole situation was ****ed to death garbage, you're a shameless homer.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
we're very likely to get a 2018 first round pick. Probably somewhere in the low- to mid-20s. That doesn't make it a great trade (it wasn't). But if we get another steal in that range (happened twice lately), then some will revisit this trade with less acid in their bellies. Not likely, but possible.
I hope to revisit the trade under such circumstances.
I see your point and to clarify: I agree that Kanter's "net value" may be zero/negative. In other words, he has value as a player, but it may be less than the opportunity cost of his contract (what they could do with the money on different players).
Using round numbers of assumed $100MM cap, if OKC spends $50MM on two max starters (Westbrook + another), pays ~$17mm for Kanter, this leaves ~$33MM for other 3 starters & 6-9 reserves. Good luck building a roster with that constraint. You'd have to fill roster with rookie contracts, MLEs & minimums.
Even with a higher cap, a bad contract is still a bad contract. So I think OKC will dump Kanter at some point. They just need to find a "greater fool" buyer.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Durant leaving and Westbrook staying was about the best possible scenario as far as that pick is concerned. I was much bigger hater before that all happened. Now, though, I think it's fair to let the hate dial back a little bit.
Was on Spain's Olympic roster but did not play much. Believe he had an injury to deal with. Would not expect much from him this first season. Most guys take one year to really get acclimated to NBA and also he will need to work a lot on his strength.