Nikola Mirotic

[radiohegel]

Yes.

Question: Is Mirotic worth a 20-30 pick?
Answer: Yes.
Solution: Trade it one for him.
Red herring: But we traded one for Rubio and GH!

Saying the George Hill trade is irrelevent to this situation is really foolish. George Hill was an excellent fit on the Jazz, and a better player than Mirotic. The only reason it can be argued a poor trade in hindsight is the fact that the Jazz didn't gain longterm team control in the deal, and Hill ended up walking. That's definitely applicable to the current situation.

I know everyone is getting excited about Mirotic being intrigued by the Jazz, but you have to remember that that's literally just it - he is reported to be 'intrigued' (and we don't even have an actual quote from him to get a sense of the context). All of a sudden fans are making this giant leap and translating that into Mirotic really liking the coaching staff and organization, and using that supposition as evidence indicating he will stay. That's a breakdown of logic; not using the outcome of the George Hill trade to inform our current decision.

I would probably agree that Mirotic would be worth a 20-30 pick. That is not an asset the Jazz have, so there isn't a conversation to be had. A first round pick with top-20 protection is a very different asset, because of the multi-year future trade restrictions it comes with. Think of it like the non-player trade asset equivalent of taking on bad contracts. It really limits your flexibility down the road.

If the Jazz had a late first round pick, I'd be all for sending it to Chicago. I don't think it's nearly as clear a decision when what we're giving up is years of trade flexibility (that very well could extend beyond Mirotic even being in Utah, at that).

 

[infection]

It's all risk and benefit. Is there risk to locking up a couple years with a protected pick that becomes untradable at different points? Yes. Is there a risk of becoming hypoglycemic for a diabetic using insulin? Yes. Should that mean they shouldn't use it? The equivalent statement we're making about being preoccupied with losing flexibility would be like "well they could die if they become too hypoglycemic, so I view that as pretty significant."

If we trade our pick this year with a top 20 protection, then we can trade that pick any time the top 10 records get clenched and can trade that all the way up until the draft. Same thing for the following year. It doesn't mean you CAN'T trade it, it just puts some limits on it.

 

[Dali]

If only we would have kept our pick instead of traded it for George Hill. Then we might have timothe luwawu cabarrot (a guy lots of jazz fanzers, myself included, wanted with that pick) and his 6 points and 1.6 rebounds per game along with his 38% shooting and his 30% 3 point shooting.

We would probably be competing for home court advantage in the playoffs if only we had him.

Ah I see that Fish has no TLC towards TLC.

Understandable though, he has been total poop.

 

[radiohegel]

It's all risk and benefit. Is there risk to locking up a couple years with a protected pick that becomes untradable at different points? Yes. Is there a risk of becoming hypoglycemic for a diabetic using insulin? Yes. Should that mean they shouldn't use it? The equivalent statement we're making about being preoccupied with losing flexibility would be like "well they could die if they become too hypoglycemic, so I view that as pretty significant."

If we trade our pick this year with a top 20 protection, then we can trade that pick any time the top 10 records get clenched and can trade that all the way up until the draft. Same thing for the following year. It doesn't mean you CAN'T trade it, it just puts some limits on it.

wtf are you talking about? The Jazz aren't going to ****ing die if they don't trade for Mirotic...

If you really want to start digging up analogies, a better one would be taking out a mortgage so you can invest in a promising company.

And no, you can't trade a pick just because the top ten records get clenched, because you then hypothetically owe the next year's pick. Furthermore, when have you ever seen the top ten records clenched by a tradedeadline?

 

[infection]

wtf are you talking about? The Jazz aren't going to ****ing die if they don't trade for Mirotic...

If you really want to start digging up analogies, a better one would be taking out a mortgage so you can invest in a promising company.

And no, you can't trade a pick just because the top ten records get clenched, because you then hypothetically owe the next year's pick. Furthermore, when have you ever seen the top ten records clenched by a tradedeadline?

1. I'm talking about draft trades.
2. The analogy wasn't that they'd die. The analogy is that just because a possibility of something bad doesn't mean you don't do it.

i.e.

Parents speaking to physician after their 8 year old is diagnosed with Type I diabetes: But couldn't they die if they became hypoglycemic on insulin?
Doctor: Yes.
Parents: So maybe we shouldn't give insulin?

Fans: But couldn't it prevent us from making a trade with a future pick because of the protection?
League: Yes.
Fans: Then we shouldn't trade it.

 

[radiohegel]

1. I'm talking about draft trades.
2. The analogy wasn't that they'd die. The analogy is that just because a possibility of something bad doesn't mean you don't do it.

i.e.

Parents speaking to physician after their 8 year old is diagnosed with Type I diabetes: But couldn't they die if they became hypoglycemic on insulin?
Doctor: Yes.
Parents: So maybe we shouldn't give insulin?

Fans: But couldn't it prevent us from making a trade with a future pick because of the protection?
League: Yes.
Fans: Then we shouldn't trade it.

Wait. Do you really think that's a legitimate comparison? Like actually?

 

[infection]

Wait. Do you really think that's a legitimate comparison? Like actually?

Are you familiar with people using stories of accentuated reality to make a point, or do you think someone’s mortality hinges on a Mirotic trade?

 

[radiohegel]

Are you familiar with people using stories of accentuated reality to make a point, or do you think someone’s mortality hinges on a Mirotic trade?

What you're referring to is called hyperbole, and it's not really a legitimate form of argument.

 

[infection]

What you're referring to is called hyperbole, and it's not really a legitimate form of argument.

The point is just because there is a downside to something isn’t justification by itself for not doing it.

 

[infection]

Better put:

Q: Couldn’t it hamper future flexibility?
A: Yes. And?

 

[radiohegel]

The point is just because there is a downside to something isn’t justification by itself for not doing it.

But you have to at least clearly and accurately identify the possible downsides if you want your decision to be an informed one.

Better put:

Q: Couldn’t it hamper future flexibility?
A: Yes. And?

Yes, and I'm not convinced Mirotic is a good enough player to be worth mortgaging our trade flexibility for, especially considering the high level of uncertainty about his length of stay with the Jazz.

Edit: to be clear, I think it would be great if the Jazz can snag Mirotic. But only if Chicago concedes and takes a couple seconds instead of a first, or if that first comes from a third party, like Cleveland.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I don't think any team that doesn't have an asset horde should be trading any first round pick for any player on a hot-streak whose contract expires in a year and whose own teammates were fine with him being beat to ****, all in order to put the team on a proper treadmill for the duration of his contract.