What's new
By:
Filters

Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz

Ineptimusprime said:
I think we are in agreement we should move off our veteran players.

I just think we can do better than 2 total FRPs for Beverley, Clarkson, and Beasley. You disagree. I guess we’ll see what happens. The proposed trade with the Lakers does achieve some objectives, it just doesn’t seem like enough draft compensation to me.
Click to expand...
And if the Jazz are able to pick up multiple 1sts AND 2nds with the extra cap space they’ll have in 2023? Cuz they’d save ~$30 million in cap space doing the aforementioned move.
 
NUMBERICA said:
And if the Jazz are able to pick up multiple 1sts AND 2nds with the extra cap space they’ll have in 2023? Cuz they’d save ~$30 million in cap space doing the aforementioned move.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that expiring contracts have value to a tanking team, but Russell Westbrook isn’t the only expiring contract in the NBA next offseason.

Can they throw in some ‘23, ‘24, or ‘25 second rounders too?

I like the idea of getting as many darts to throw in next year’s draft as possible.
 
idiot said:
Our players(') (salaries) are only useful to us when we trade them (assuming a tank). Otherwise, they're every bit as "bad" for us as Westbook's. But even this only starts to point to the real issue.

It doesn't matter whether we are doing the Lakers 2 big favors.
Click to expand...
Those players aren't 'every bit as bad for us as Westbrook'. The Lakers have Lebron and AD. They have a window to compete that closes every day Lebron ages. They are 100% win now or reset. Westbrook is the biggest thing stopping them from progressing as when he is on the floor they statistically are worse in every way but they have to appease him because of his qualifications.

If we keep our players to the trade deadline or even through the end of the season then whoopdeedoo. We don't lose anything other than paying the guys their salaries. We have to pay someone. A guy like Conley can mentor Jared Butler. The others are fantastic pieces for competitors at the trade deadline.

No real urgency here on our behalf.

Regarding whether it matters if we are doing the Lakers 2 big Favors... IT DOES TO THEM. Which is why it will cost them.
 
The Jazz Wonderbra said:
Those players aren't 'every bit as bad for us as Westbrook'. The Lakers have Lebron and AD. They have a window to compete that closes every day Lebron ages. They are 100% win now or reset. Westbrook is the biggest thing stopping them from progressing as when he is on the floor they statistically are worse in every way but they have to appease him because of his qualifications.

If we keep our players to the trade deadline or even through the end of the season then whoopdeedoo. We don't lose anything other than paying the guys their salaries. We have to pay someone. A guy like Conley can mentor Jared Butler. The others are fantastic pieces for competitors at the trade deadline.

No real urgency here on our behalf.

Regarding whether it matters if we are doing the Lakers 2 big Favors... IT DOES TO THEM. Which is why it will cost them.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. It would be worse (in a tanking situation) for the Jazz to get the 2027 and 2029 FRP from the Lakers (perhaps unprotected) and the financial flexibility that an expiring Westbook would bring to the 2023-24 season than to get something like (the very plausible alternative situations of):

- a 2nd rounder and an expiring for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar-sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
-an expected late 2023 first (perhaps about pick 27) and a contract expiring in 2024 for Clarkson

OR

- a late 2023 first plus $14 million expiring contract in 2025 for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
- no trade at all of Clarkson in 2022-23 (and then 2 second rounders for him in 2024 for 2025 expiring salary)

Is that your argument? And the reason is because we'd be helping the Lakers out too much by taking their two first rounders?

I'd get it if your argument is that we can get more for those three players than we can get from the Lakers (though I've indicated several times that I'm somewhat dubious about that argument). But my point is that it doesn't matter at all whether we are helping the Lakers out. I don't care what their situation is other than that their needs and our desires may align. What matters is that we help ourselves out as much as possible. Failing to deal with them if their offer is the best just because it helps them escape a sticky situation is GM malpractice.

PS, I do agree with you that there's no urgency. We should definitely shop around before doing something like this Laker idea. But it's an idea we have to keep in mind and weigh against what else the market is offering.
 
idiot said:
So let me get this straight. It would be worse (in a tanking situation) for the Jazz to get the 2027 and 2029 FRP from the Lakers (perhaps unprotected) and the financial flexibility that an expiring Westbook would bring to the 2023-24 season than to get something like (the very plausible alternative situations of):

- a 2nd rounder and an expiring for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar-sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
-an expected late 2023 first (perhaps about pick 27) and a contract expiring in 2024 for Clarkson

OR

- a late 2023 first plus $14 million expiring contract in 2025 for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
- no trade at all of Clarkson in 2022-23 (and then 2 second rounders for him in 2024 for 2025 expiring salary)

Is that your argument? And the reason is because we'd be helping the Lakers out too much by taking their two first rounders?

I'd get it if your argument is that we can get more for those three players than we can get from the Lakers (though I've indicated several times that I'm somewhat dubious about that argument). But my point is that it doesn't matter at all whether we are helping the Lakers out. I don't care what their situation is other than that their needs and our desires may align. What matters is that we help ourselves out as much as possible. Failing to deal with them if their offer is the best just because it helps them escape a sticky situation is GM malpractice.

PS, I do agree with you that there's no urgency. We should definitely shop around before doing something like this Laker idea. But it's an idea we have to keep in mind and weigh against what else the market is offering.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this except I think there should be urgency. We’re obviously not the only team that might explore this as a possibility. We are not going to do better that those picks, I am planting my flag in that as comfortably as saying Udoka/Favors **** was catastrophic when it was all coming down the pipe.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I agree with all of this except I think there should be urgency. We’re obviously not the only team that might explore this as a possibility. We are not going to do better that those picks, I am planting my flag in that as comfortably as saying Udoka/Favors **** was catastrophic when it was all coming down the pipe.
Click to expand...
That's a good point.

The main bit of pause with a Lakers trade is that we don't really know that it's out there for the taking. Everything I've seen from the Lakers is that they don't want to trade both picks (except for Kyrie). And even if they could be persuaded to make both picks available for larger numbers of lesser talents, there's no guarantees that they'd be unprotected. Just speculation (or really just hopes) from vulture fan bases like ours that perhaps maybe possibly the Lakers will be desperate enough to make them unprotected.
 
Clarkson to LA makes sense because he fits alongside lebron and AD and is just happy to be a 6th man guy. Westbrook otoh clearly doesn't fit, they say they will try to make it work but i dont think it will.

Westbrook to utah is going to be weird. i think he should just go back to OKC and retire there. be a hometown hero
 
I really like our situation now. We do not have to drade Don unless the offer is impossible to refect. That's probably why it gona take a bit of time. Knicks will get more pressure near the deadline . And if not we can still keep Don and trade him later on.
 
Blurb about Don from The Athletic:

Meanwhile, eyes and ears around the league also remain fixated on the Utah Jazz and New York Knicks engaging in trade talks surrounding Mitchell. The Knicks’ asset pool — up to eight first-round draft picks and young players such as Quentin Grimes, Immanuel Quickley and Obi Toppin — gives them a clear opportunity to acquire Mitchell, but sources say talks so far have moved slowly and the sides are far from an agreement. With three years guaranteed remaining on Mitchell’s contract, the Jazz are not operating with a sense of urgency and have the time to evaluate the best offers for the 25-year-old.

Mitchell has spent the summer in his usual offseason routine: high-intensity workouts and time with his family and friends. Sources said the three-time NBA All-Star has not requested a trade or attempted to force his way out of Utah, but should the franchise move toward a full rebuild a competitor like Mitchell would prefer to be in an environment geared toward winning now, not later.

Along with New York, several other teams have expressed interest to the Jazz when it comes to Mitchell, such as Washington, Miami, Toronto, Charlotte, Sacramento and Atlanta, according to sources.

Like Brooklyn, the Jazz have held firm on setting a high bar on any potential Mitchell deal, and they expect to be patient throughout the process. For now, the Jazz will continue to evaluate incoming calls and seek ways to balance their roster.
Click to expand...
 
Per Shams at Athletic


Utah Jazz

Utah, New York and Indiana are among the teams who have discussed deals with the Lakers involving Russell Westbrook and draft capital, sources said. There appears no deal imminent in those conversations — as the overall trade market plays out over the next two months of the offseason.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Per Shams at Athletic


Utah Jazz

Utah, New York and Indiana are among the teams who have discussed deals with the Lakers involving Russell Westbrook and draft capital, sources said. There appears no deal imminent in those conversations — as the overall trade market plays out over the next two months of the offseason.
Click to expand...
Considering our direction (tanking), a Russell Westbrook trade where we get future picks for dropping current "useful" veterans (Conley, Clarkson, Bojan, Beverley, etc.) makes perfect sense.
 
jom2003 said:
I'm all for JC staying. One of the few who actually wanted to be here.


View: https://twitter.com/AriA1exander/status/1550607230092935168?t=ZcEI36t6tDKpSyWMgRPG5w&s=19



View: https://twitter.com/JordanClarksons/status/1550576004770529286?t=WKsB0D8QKh_z3voUdb9XHA&s=19
Click to expand...

My preference would be - if thet can conceivably be important part of next iteration of competitive Jazz basketball - keep them, if not (for whatever reason - too old, contract expiring and unlikely to resign, not good enough, etc) - trade them for the best package or try to raise their trade value so we can get a good package for them. Unfortunately JC probably fits in the "trade them for future 1st" category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top