What's new
By:

Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz

High value easy to move pieces that would either help to move up in the draft or trade for a star. That's picks and valuable low cost players. I think season record is third on Danny's priorities. Well maybe it is fourth - fun is a priority too apparently.
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
What good does adding players do right now? None at all. I promise Ainge is looking for as many firsts as he can find. Wants to be as asset rich as possible to build a team next year or in 25

Edit: idiot!!
Click to expand...
Adding young players definitely helps. If we could somehow get Allen and Beauchamp for Clarkson then you do it in a second. There is no way the Lakers are giving up 2 firsts in the scenario mentioned though.
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
Ya and they were going to get players back from the Knicks too but wouldn’t add a third unprotected so he dealt with the cavs. It’s been rumored the jazz didn’t take back McDanials so they could get picks. What about that deal screams to you the jazz have interest in players? They want to lose the next year or two and use picks going forward on young stud prospects and trade chips.
Click to expand...
The rumor was they wouldn't give up McDaniels so we demanded an extra 1 or 2 firsts. We clearly wanted McDaniels.
 
sip said:
Adding young players definitely helps. If we could somehow get Allen and Beauchamp for Clarkson then you do it in a second. There is no way the Lakers are giving up 2 firsts in the scenario mentioned though.
Click to expand...
Clarkson for Beauchamp and picks? I love JC but that is tempting... And he would play for Bucks which would do JC a solid.
 
whatthe said:
Clarkson for Beauchamp and picks? I love JC but that is tempting... And he would play for Bucks which would do JC a solid.
Click to expand...

Clarkson for Allen and Beauchamp would be the deal. Beauchamp was the 24th overall pick this year they wouldn’t be adding much if anything to that package.
 
whatthe said:
Clarkson for Beauchamp and picks? I love JC but that is tempting... And he would play for Bucks which would do JC a solid.
Click to expand...
Not sure we'd get all that. I think JC is more like 2-3 second round picks type of value. Player option on that deal is problematic since it only adds downside (if he gets hurt or sucks he exercises it).
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Not sure we'd get all that. I think JC is more like 2-3 second round picks type of value. Player option on that deal is problematic since it only adds downside (if he gets hurt or sucks he exercises it).
Click to expand...
It's not all downside. If the team wants his deal to be expiring (like the Lakers), the possibility exists rather than not.

As it stands, he's on a value offer and he'll be playing to get a new deal next year while his legs are younger.
 
Elizah Huge said:
It was McDaniels vs two 1sts… I’m thinking Ainge made the right call there regardless.

If you think the Jazz don’t want young prospects on cheap contracts you’re more of an idiot than I thought.

In fact I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time with this because you are so clearly out of the loop it is a waste of my time.
Click to expand...
All I’m saying is why are they going to take deals centered around players when the LA deal is starring then in the face. We also want to lose as many games as possible. People are talking about Crowder he’s not a young prospect.
 
MT Steve said:
From what I understand, the Jazz originally wanted McDaniels and the Wolves wanted to keep him, so the Jazz asked for more picks to compensate for not getting McDaniels.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it was exactly reported. Like I think Utah might have asked for McDaniels thinking asking for 4 picks was out of the question, not that they preferred McDaniels over that option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top