Jazz wanted Alex Abrines in Kanter trade?

[NUMBERICA]

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.

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.

 

[NAOS]

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?

The trade was total ****ing garbage until one of the assets does a damn thing positive. 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).

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.

 

[NUMBERICA]

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.

 

[silesian]

PS. Kanter STILL doesn't have value. OKC wanted to trade him all summer, but couldn't.

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]

I hope to revisit the trade under such circumstances.

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.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Anyway, Abrines is and was intriguing. Would've been cool to get him. I'm interested to see how he plays.

 

[mellow]

Wow. With just two posts in this thread Andy makes jazzfanz feel 200 times smarter.

 

[NCJazz]

Anyway, Abrines is and was intriguing. Would've been cool to get him. I'm interested to see how he plays.

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.

 

[silesian]

Wow. With just two posts in this thread Andy makes jazzfanz feel 200 times smarter.

So you are saying we are 0.5% as smart as Andy? Thanks, that's a pretty nice complement.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

The belief that you have got to get value for every asset is completely wrong. Sometimes the best decision is to cut your losses. The Kanter trade was a perfect example. Turn the page.

 

[addictionary]

Just gonna sig my own post from now on and maybe post less to make room for quality stuff.