What's new
By:
Filters

Article About Denver Wanting to Trade

seattlejazzfan said:
Bradley has pretty much zero value. Besides the fact he's not that good, he's pretty much the prototypical example of the type of player who is useless in today's NBA.
Click to expand...

This is how I felt when we drafted him. He looked like a Collins brother.

But Lindsey loved him for some reason. And Lindsey is a stud.

So it’s resaonable to think that a few other GM’s may really like him too.
 
Last edited:
TheStormofWar said:
It's not really about Faried. But turning the Ungs into another possible asset (Faried's deal expiring next summer) along with 14? Yeah, you do that.
Click to expand...
I see the point, but I personally don't think getting rid of some of our handpicked players, taking on Faried, and taking Faried's contract is worth the 14 pick. I could be wrong.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
Bradley has pretty much zero value. Besides the fact he's not that good, he's pretty much the prototypical example of the type of player who is useless in today's NBA.
Click to expand...
Well, supposedly the Jazz traded up to get him because they thought the Spurs wanted him, so he at least has some trade value to the Spurs.

Much in the same way we thought Lyles had little value, but Denver liked him in the draft and he didnt do anything to make them switch their stance on him.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
****, I wonder if they want to shed it so badly they would do 14 and Faried for our 2nd and a couple future 2nds? And filler if need be to get us under the cap.

If we could pull that off and have 14, 21 and next year’s 1st, we’d have some legit ****ing assets.
Click to expand...

Pull it off? Trading an expiring in two years plus 2 first rounders (not possible by what you proposed BTW) for one year of Faried makes zero sense to Denver.

Burks for Faried would cost Utah a first rounder, and I wouldn't be upset about it.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
14 and 21 alone isn’t getting you higher than probably 9. At best. Bradley, while a wildcard, was supposedly going to be a top 10 pick this draft had he stayed in school. He has a year in the g-league too and while he may be a wildcard to us, scouts have certain opinions of him I’m sure.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on what the team in that range is looking for. This is supposedly a pretty good draft class, so if a team is looking to trade back because there's someone in the the mid-teens they are enamored, they may snap on that as there could be someone at 21 who would fall. Bradley may just be icing, for said team, but it depends. Then again, it depends on if DL has someone up in that range he thinks helps this team as well. There's a lot of variables, but a Faried and 14 for our Ungs is a prototypical Lindsey type of deal.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Pull it off? Trading an expiring in two years plus 2 first rounders (not possible by what you proposed BTW) for one year of Faried makes zero sense to Denver.

Burks for Faried would cost Utah a first rounder, and I wouldn't be upset about it.
Click to expand...

In two years? Faried has one year left on his deal. So does Burks.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Pull it off? Trading an expiring in two years plus 2 first rounders (not possible by what you proposed BTW) for one year of Faried makes zero sense to Denver.

Burks for Faried would cost Utah a first rounder, and I wouldn't be upset about it.
Click to expand...

Utah is not trading Burks for Faried. It would be the Ungs. Denver is looking to drop out of the tax. Trading Thabo, Jonas, and Epke for Faried and 14 would be the baseline deal. If Denver's GM Connelly has a gun to his head by ownership, Utah is one of the logical deals there as they can facilitate it.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
In two years? Faried has one year left on his deal. So does Burks.
Click to expand...

Consider me corrected. Swapping picks and those two, plus an extra second or so from Utah makes sense for both teams. Burks would help them more with his 3 pt range, and maybe he'd be a better fit than here.

Utah could waive Faried and save some money.
 
Faried and #14 for all 3 nonguaranteeds, #52 and future 2nd rounders is a fair deal.

Denver keeping Barton is more important than #14. Shedding $13.5 (Faried) off the cap is pretty valuable these days.


Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I think this draft potentially sucks at 14 (as in, I think there where will be a sizable tier of players at 14 that will also be there at 21), kind of like I thought the draft last year would suck at 13.

It depends on if someone falls, but if the draft goes how i think it will, then I'm not sure 14 is that much better than 21. Taking on Faried means you probably can't sign Favors unless you want to pay LT. Is moving up from 21 to 14 worth Favors? It depends.
 
LoPo said:
Faried and #14 for all 3 nonguaranteeds, #52 and future 2nd rounders is a fair deal.

Denver keeping Barton is more important than #14. Shedding $13.5 (Faried) off the cap is pretty valuable these days.


Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

If we needed to pop in a couple of 2nds, I've no problem with that. Faried could well turn into an asset at the deadline next year. Just depends on how the markets play out, but we could make some nice gains for very little risk. I'm not DL, but I'd be all over that.
 
LoPo said:
Faried and #14 for all 3 nonguaranteeds, #52 and future 2nd rounders is a fair deal.

Denver keeping Barton is more important than #14. Shedding $13.5 (Faried) off the cap is pretty valuable these days.


Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this works. It turns out all the non-guaranteed guys dont actually count as outgoing salary for upcoming trades.
 
Are you sure Cy? I thought they could act as trade chips. There has been talk of Al Jefferson and other nonguaranteed contracts acting as trade chips so teams can shed cap.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Wes Mantooth said:
****, I wonder if they want to shed it so badly they would do 14 and Faried for our 2nd and a couple future 2nds? And filler if need be to get us under the cap.

If we could pull that off and have 14, 21 and next year’s 1st, we’d have some legit ****ing assets.
Click to expand...

No, they would want to swap picks. They could pick swap with Brooklyn and get the 29th pick, or something like that. The Jazz arent the only team that can facilitate a trade.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I'm not sure this works. It turns out all the non-guaranteed guys dont actually count as outgoing salary for upcoming trades.
Click to expand...

Yes they do... they are team options... ESPN trade machine has it wrong... it is not uncommon for them to have it be goofy.
 
Not sure why people are so quick to just dump all three nonguaranteeds.

One, Denver’s whole point is they want to save a lot of ****ing money. Those three combined make almost as much as Faried if not more so why would they do it? I’m guessing users are just thinking Denver can then opt out of those deals and that’s fine.

But why would we do it? Don’t each of those guys bring us some value?

I mean, I’m not sure I would keep Sef and JJ but dumping both of those doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, especially since it’s no foregone conclusion Favors is coming back.

And just dumping Udoh means Bradley or Faried is backing Gobert up. Can they?

Burks and a couple 2nds for Faried and Chandler and 14 makes sense.

Or a couple 2nds for Faried and 14 makes sense.

But dumping all those dudes does not imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top