What's new
By:
Filters

Retool around Donovan

idiot said:
I think it's the very rare coach who would prefer a full tank to having a star and some (at least decent) pieces around him.

I know most of this board is out on him, but I highly doubt his image around the league/team is low enough for Hardy not to welcome him if he's there.
Click to expand...
Plus, they have a pre-existing relationship from USA Basketball. Still think there’s too much hinting toward a possible trade to NY that it’s the most likely outcome at this point.

I’d be happy to have him back though.
 
Hearsky said:
You don't trade Beverly if you are going to retool. Bev is a ****ing man. He willed the Wolves to the playoffs last year.
Click to expand...
Yeah you do.

If you want to re-tool you basically trade everyone over 30 on the team. Lose as many games as possible with Mitchell then use your cap space and future picks to get some players.
 
Release the Kraken said:
Yeah but we have such a logjam at that position currently, and with Conley load managed and overpaid, you may have no choice.
Click to expand...
Generally agree. I totally get why people wat to keep PatBev if we're trying to win at all, but I'm not sure that the situation we're in will really allow keeping him to make a lot of sense. Besides all the things he does that help a team win (and there are a lot), he's old and short, one of our best trade chips, and perhaps our fifth best guard currently (depending on what you value in a guard).
 
Phoenix will be highly.motivated to deal Ayton around the trade deadline. Is Brown possible? If he is gettable with the Gobert package then do it.
 
Without saying we could get Brown for the Gobert pieces (we couldn’t), doing so would have been a colossal failure because we should have dealt Mitchell for Brown or for pieces for Brown and paired him with Gobert, because that’s a contender. You would have also gotten spare change because Donovan’s perceived value being higher. Or even if the Gobert package somehow lands you Brown, and instead you traded Donovan for the Gobert package and you end up with:

Beverley
Brown
Bogdanovic
Vanderbilt
Gobert

I know that all of that is unlikely and not realistic, but so too is the idea that we’re going to be better off for having dealt Gobert.
 
whatthe said:
Phoenix will be highly.motivated to deal Ayton around the trade deadline. Is Brown possible? If he is gettable with the Gobert package then do it.
Click to expand...
Maybe. You'd have to get Ayton interested in the Jazz, of course, since he has a no-trade clause for a year.

I'm sure Danny's monitoring the Boston situation with Brown. For my part, I'd be surprised if he's gettable.
 
infection said:
Without saying we could get Brown for the Gobert pieces (we couldn’t), doing so would have been a colossal failure because we should have dealt Mitchell for Brown or for pieces for Brown and paired him with Gobert, because that’s a contender. You would have also gotten spare change because Donovan’s perceived value being higher. Or even if the Gobert package somehow lands you Brown, and instead you traded Donovan for the Gobert package and you end up with:

Beverley
Brown
Bogdanovic
Vanderbilt
Gobert

I know that all of that is unlikely and not realistic, but so too is the idea that we’re going to be better off for having dealt Gobert.
Click to expand...
That would have been a wonderfully nasty lineup. Ah...Jazzfanz always gets me dreaming..lol.
 
infection said:
Without saying we could get Brown for the Gobert pieces (we couldn’t), doing so would have been a colossal failure because we should have dealt Mitchell for Brown or for pieces for Brown and paired him with Gobert, because that’s a contender. You would have also gotten spare change because Donovan’s perceived value being higher. Or even if the Gobert package somehow lands you Brown, and instead you traded Donovan for the Gobert package and you end up with:

Beverley
Brown
Bogdanovic
Vanderbilt
Gobert

I know that all of that is unlikely and not realistic, but so too is the idea that we’re going to be better off for having dealt Gobert.
Click to expand...
Wait, is this hypothetical lineup based on trading Mitchell for the Gobert package then that package for Brown? How do parts of that package still end up in the Jazz starting lineup? Or what exactly are you saying? I'm kind of lost trying to read this.

(And I'm not entirely sure why you're commenting about the idea that we'll be better off for having dealt Gobert. That's the stuff of Lopo and SLC Dunk. It's not something I ever meant to imply by starting this thread.)
 
idiot said:
Wait, is this hypothetical lineup based on trading Mitchell for the Gobert package then that package for Brown? How do parts of that package still end up in the Jazz starting lineup? Or what exactly are you saying? I'm kind of lost trying to read this.

(And I'm not entirely sure why you're commenting about the idea that we'll be better off for having dealt Gobert. That's the stuff of Lopo and SLC Dunk. It's not something I ever meant to imply by starting this thread.)
Click to expand...
I’m responding to a statement of questioning whether we could land Brown with Gobert pieces. I don’t believe we can, but nevertheless entertained a hypothetical where we sent out Donovan in place of Rudy and then later grabbed Brown. I’m stating that a hypothetical like that is very low likelihood, enough so that we wouldn’t entertain it. I liken its likelihood of having been possible to the likelihood that us having dealt Gobert actually leaves us better off in the long run. Of course we wouldn’t entertain the idea that we could have landed Brown for Mitchell because, on top of everything else, that door has closed. But we’re willing to entertain the hypothetical that dealing Gobert will have left us better off, when all is said and done, partially because that is the current “reality hypothetical” that we’re in, even if I think the odds of a successful outcome related to that are not too dissimilar to the odds of us having been able to land Brown with Mitchell and been able to retain a couple of those other spare parts.
 
infection said:
But we’re willing to entertain the hypothetical that dealing Gobert will have left us better off, when all is said and done,
Click to expand...
Who is doing this? I explicitly said in the message you're responding to that I'm not and that this was not the purpose of the thread.
infection said:
partially because that is the current “reality hypothetical” that we’re in
Click to expand...
Yes, it's true that we are currently without Gobert and with Mitchell. The likeliest outcome is that we'll be without both. But since it still remains technically possible to keep Mitchell, I didn't think that it's so strange to think through that possibility a bit.

infection said:
I’m responding to a statement of questioning whether we could land Brown with Gobert pieces. I don’t believe we can, but nevertheless entertained a hypothetical where we sent out Donovan in place of Rudy and then later grabbed Brown. I’m stating that a hypothetical like that is very low likelihood, enough so that we wouldn’t entertain it. I liken its likelihood of having been possible to the likelihood that us having dealt Gobert actually leaves us better off in the long run.
Click to expand...
So you're trying to present a parable? Using an impossible situation -- not only impossible because its possibility no longer exists in current reality, but also impossible because you seem to be simultaneously assigning Beverley and Vanderbilt to two teams -- Utah's starting lineup and Boston (as part of the hypothetical trade to get Brown) -- to compare to the possibility of being better off without Gobert (something that nobody here has asserted is likely)?

If your key point is that trading Gobert makes it very unlikely for the Jazz to be as good in the next few years as they were in the recent past, I agree. If your key point is something more than that, I confess I'm still lost.
 
We could easily get another star with the package we got for Gobert if the team wanted draft picks instead of win-now players. We literally got one of the top-5 trade hauls in NBA history for Gobert.
 
There were 3 realistic options to begin with:

1- Keep both and move the chairs around

2- Trade both and rebuild

3- Trade Mitchell and retool around Rudy


Trading Gobert to retool around Mitchell would be beyond stupid. Once Gobert was traded, our fate was sealed.
 
OK say we roll with the roster as is including Mitchell and go out and sign Hassan Whiteside. I think that bunch of players has the potential to be pretty darn good.
 
**** no! Dons gotta go he isn’t leading the Jazz anywhere. I don’t want to see another half *** retool around some sensitive wanna be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Retool with what? We'll probably win enough games to be mid range draft(which we will lose if I'm not mistaken) with the current roster meanwhile Minnesota will probably be high 20's. It's already late in FA this year so we are not finding any earth shattering pieces that are going to make us anything more than a 6 seed and that's being extremely generous. Next year will be Donovans second to last season and I still don't see us making any move that'll make us contenders. Once again the draft will be non lottery picks so hitting anything worthwhile and immediate is highly unlikely.

Then comes DM's last year and we might find enough to contend but we're mortgaging our entire future on one season, two in the unlikely event we find a championship piece next off-season.
 
I see I've failed in making the headline for this thread. I meant "retool" as a noun rather than a verb. But it seems most readers ignore my first sentence in the thread and assume I meant that I'm advocating for retooling around Donovan.

At least half the posts want to continue the argument (well-worn elsewhere on this forum) about the wisdom of trying to retool around Donovan. I was trying to get away from that discussion, and just trying to imagine what a hypothetical (very unlikley) "retooling" might look like.

Oh well. Carry on.
 
idiot said:
I see I've failed in making the headline for this thread. I meant "retool" as a noun rather than a verb. But it seems most readers ignore my first sentence in the thread and assume I meant that I'm advocating for retooling around Donovan.

At least half the posts want to continue the argument (well-worn elsewhere on this forum) about the wisdom of trying to retool around Donovan. I was trying to get away from that discussion, and just trying to imagine what a hypothetical (very unlikley) "retooling" might look like.

Oh well. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I understand what you’re trying to get at. To be completely honest I spent a couple minutes thinking about it and it’s pretty hard to find a couple suitable deals that are realistic that would make us better. Our best bet would be to combine some of our own picks with Minnesota’s and some expiring contracts to get another star.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top