I agree, except that I think that Clarkson had enough negative value that no one wanted to do it for what the Jazz had available. I've been pretty confident of that for a while, I don't think it was for lack of trying.
I like JZ. It’s fair… I wasn’t mad. He also seemed really reasonable when talking about NAW. I hope JZ sticks around.
Honest question - does that fact that by some accounts we could have traded the same two players and saved millions and millions and even gotten out of the repeater tax not mean anything? This seems obvious to me and I know many folks dont like Locke but listen to his description of what we did versus what we could have done. He has been advocating for weeks that get out of the repeater tax situation and instead we invested in an asset that is low efficiency but with some hope of future potential. Seems like a pretty significant investment to me and clearly not a money move. Locke even proposed that getting out the luxury tax this year was a basketball move because of future flexibility. What am I missing? From the time we signed Favs, resigned Conley, and now this move it is clear that the tax is not the issue with Smith.
It would be nice if they'd use those to find role players they need instead of cleaning up mistakes they've made.
I really hope JZ sticks around. I trust him a lot more than Ainge.
Honest question... do you know the math? Because Locke didn't. Simply moving Joe into someones space wouldn't do it. We were like 15M into the tax... it would have required Joe and one of JC or Rudy Gay... so do you believe there was a team willing and able to take on that much salary? How many additional picks would that costs.
They’d have to get new hats if that happened.
Use the 2nd rounders to find role players? Cant they just buy those if they see a guy they think can be a role player. Doesn't seem like 2nd round picks are super difficult to acquire
As mentioned previously, dumping Hughes and Ingles for nothing still wouldn't have gotten us out of the tax. If I recall, the discussion here last year was about getting out of the tax because the repeater issue would be problematic. We ended up being a few hundred thousand above it and you had ardently argued that they didn't **** up the math. So they intentionally went over the tax by a smidge. But now we're saying that those would be a basketball move to get under the tax this year to avoid the repeater tax? You can't say that we had good purpose to be a few hundred thousand over the tax last year has some good, master scheme behind it and that now it's imperative to get under the tax and that it's a good move. Those two ideas are completely at odds with each other and can only arise if we're parroting back the daily spin, without any thought of having to look at any consistency between narratives.
What about as an asset? Not to say him specifically, but just as an example, the Pacers were asking for two second round picks for Justin Holiday. What happens when you've emptied the cupboards to clean up previous messes and you don't have anything to trade mid-season? Do you think other teams would take an IOU of "this is a draft pick I'll buy you on draft night" in a trade? Do you think we could have had more doors open to us in trade if we were armed with a first round pick and three second rounders? Because that's what we've dumped in the past 9 months to "make basketball moves."
See my post above about acquiring a guy like Justin Holiday. Can't do that if you don't have picks.
That’s not what I hear. What I hear is:
See my post about 2nd round picks being easy to acquire.
