What's new
By:
Filters

Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz

KqWIN said:
When Mike is out and we lose closely, yeah it's going to feel like we could have won with him. But what people don't think about is that there will also be games that Mike does play and plays poorly. Even if one player is better than the other, he's not playing better 100% of the time and even if he does it might not make the difference between W/L. Take two parallel universes where we have Mike and we don't have Mike. There will be times where it doesn't matter because both he and his replacement both play well or both play poorly and it doesn't change the result. There will be times where Mike plays better than the replacement, and it makes the difference. There will also be times where he plays better and it doesn't make the difference between winning and losing. There will also be times where the placement, even if he's worse overall, will perform better than Mike and it could make the difference. You have to consider all that, not just the times where Mike plays better and it makes the difference. It's very easy to look back at a game and say, "ah we would have won with Mike".

Dismiss it because "math" if you want, but Mike would have to have a superstar level impact to make a 5 game difference in 32 games. RAPTOR had 6 guys total in the NBA produce at that level last season. Say that's totally off and there's actually 5x more players who can do that in the league. Is Mike a top 30 player right now? I don't think he's close. 10x more players that can do that, he's still not close to being a top 60 player. I think he's actually pretty similar to Collin Sexton's level, who we are 5-8 without btw. I think the impact of losing Conley would be very similar to losing Sexton. The bench would drop, and that would make a difference, but probably not a ton. This is also assuming we get no player back better than THT.

Numbers aren't everything of course, but I won't dismiss them unless there is something overwhelming that overrides that. And all of this just to bring up the real question, do we care if we win 1, 3, or even 5 more games with Mike? If we do win 5 more with Mike, do we actually want to win those 5 games anyways? You can be dead set that Mike wins us a lot more games, but that also servers as legitimate rationale as to why we SHOULD trade him.
Click to expand...
I understand that. I think measures like Raptor are useful for player projections but can have deficiencies in projecting team performance. I get that a player can have both good and bad games but Mike is a very steady force for good. I think THT has some wild swings and so does Collin but since our margins are pretty thin here those swings will end up costing us games.

The example that illustrates how I think on this is Bogey and the Denver series. If Bogey plays in that series I am fairly certain everyone here would say we win... likely in 6 games. Does that mean that Bogey is a 23 WAR player? No not at all. Could he make a 2 win difference in a 7 game set? **** yes he could.

13 of our 50 games have been decided by 3 points or less. We are 7-6 in those games. We should have 8 or so of those games the rest of the year. Could two of those games flip on us without Mike in between now and the end of the year? What happens if we move Mike and Collin or NAW miss 5-6 games? Do 2 or 3 of those games flip.

WS, box plus minus, WAR all that **** is valuable for player comparisons and such but I think the math is imperfect and won't capture exact win/loss effect over a sample of 32 games.

Read my signature... I do see it as a benefit of the trade... I just think its hilarious that folks can't see that Mike helps us win and think its paint by numbers and we will fill the hole he leaves.
 
Elizah Huge said:
I think all of us would agree Sexton is a better defender than Conley right?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Sexton certainly gives more effort. He is an interesting contrast. A big part of what makes him really good is his insane intensity. A big part of what keeps him iffy is his insane intensity. We can be 100% sure he ain't going to be any part of this tanking nonsense. I love those kind of dudes. One of those rare players that would get much better by learning when to dial it down to 92%.
 
YoungJefe said:
We're reportedly still interested in John Collins but I'm not sure how he fits with Lauri / Kessler
Click to expand...
I guess he would fit in with the "win now" mode. But are Collins/Lauri/Kessler trio ready to make a run at the Chip?

Then again, I guess the West is really wide open now right?

If not Collins, who else that's available to be had via trade or FA that would fit the bill?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I understand that. I think measures like Raptor are useful for player projections but can have deficiencies in projecting team performance. I get that a player can have both good and bad games but Mike is a very steady force for good. I think THT has some wild swings and so does Collin but since our margins are pretty thin here those swings will end up costing us games.

The example that illustrates how I think on this is Bogey and the Denver series. If Bogey plays in that series I am fairly certain everyone here would say we win... likely in 6 games. Does that mean that Bogey is a 23 WAR player? No not at all. Could he make a 2 win difference in a 7 game set? **** yes he could.

13 of our 50 games have been decided by 3 points or less. We are 7-6 in those games. We should have 8 or so of those games the rest of the year. Could two of those games flip on us without Mike in between now and the end of the year? What happens if we move Mike and Collin or NAW miss 5-6 games? Do 2 or 3 of those games flip.

WS, box plus minus, WAR all that **** is valuable for player comparisons and such but I think the math is imperfect and won't capture exact win/loss effect over a sample of 32 games.

Read my signature... I do see it as a benefit of the trade... I just think its hilarious that folks can't see that Mike helps us win and think its paint by numbers and we will fill the hole he leaves.
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t believe in replacing math with worse incomplete math and general guestimation. If you have a feeling, I guess you gotta stick with it….if the perfect union of good Mike Conley performances and games where it makes to the absolute difference happens….I suppose it’s plausible. But then you have to consider the opposite scenario where it could mean no wins at all.

You seem to be pointing at a scenario where having Mike helps us scrape by in 5 extra games that we would have lost. This isn’t the same thing as increasing a team’s strength where their expected win total is 5 games more which is where I’m coming from. I get it, but it’s still so unlikely to me. Mike would shift some clear L’s to close games and some close games to clear W’s….but it kinda shows how improbable this is. Mike has to make a 5 win difference mostly in about 8 games. The large majority of games would not change in result.

If you wanted to get crazy you could look at one specific game where the situation was perfect and say….wow Mike Conley would have made an 82 win difference. I’m not going there and instead I’m going to estimate what I think Mike’s median/mean impact is. In the extreme scenarios, it may be plausible. In other extreme scenarios, Mikes absence might not make a difference at all. Not because he isn’t good, but because of confounding factors.

I think Mike helps us win. I don’t think he helps us win to the tune of an all NBA player, that is all. A player that would increase our expected win total by 5 games over 32 games is an all NBA type player.
 
Last edited:
Ok I'm gonna make my first ever trade machine thingie... but I'm bad in counting values so this might be a price that we can never get away with. Also I didnt include fillers in the trade.

Started with John Collins ealier this season... then I moved up to wanting OG.. then I though why not move up even further?

1674629841599.png

So Siakam got 2 years left like OG does, but is also 3 years older. I'm cheap on the picks but at least I dont give them from a distant future as they supposedly want to build around Scottie Barnes so they dont necessarily want 2027 picks or so.
 
ONE LOVE said:
I guess he would fit in with the "win now" mode. But are Collins/Lauri/Kessler trio ready to make a run at the Chip?

Then again, I guess the West is really wide open now right?

If not Collins, who else that's available to be had via trade or FA that would fit the bill?
Click to expand...
It seems like Atlanta is pretty desperate to move his contract so we'd likely get some assets for taking it. I'm just not a huge fan of playing Lauri at the 3, they tried it in Cleveland with mixed results but I think he's a much better 4 going forward. Especially considering Kessler is a non shooter right now and Collins has really struggled shooting this year.

OG Anunoby makes the most sense, IMO. He's only 25 years old, has a reasonable deal ($18M next year, $19M PO in 2025) and he reportedly wants out of Toronto. He strikes me as a guy that could be similar to Lauri in terms of having the potential to make a major leap with a bigger role. The two biggest concerns with him though are his injury history and the fact that we'd only have him under team control for 1.5 seasons. The Raptors also reportedly want at least two unprotected 1st round picks for him.
 
ONE LOVE said:
If Mike is getting the ball to Lauri where he needs them to develop and succeed. That to me is a good enough reason to keep him around.
Click to expand...
People are quick to point out that Lauri benefits from playing with Mike (and I agree, to an extent), but since this discussion is about Conley's value, it's worth remembering that Lauri also makes Mike look better. When you have a guy who's posting all-NBA efficiency numbers while doing a ton of assisted volume scoring, you can be sure it shows up in the stats of your starting PG.

Mike has also been shooting better lately (he's 15/31, or 48%, from the perimeter in his last 5 games). Overall, he's on the upswing offensively, but it's his defense that remains awful, and at his age he's trending down there long-term (if there IS a long-term).
 
Jaylen Brown only has two years left on his deal and will be eligible for a 5 yr/$290M super max this offseason if he makes an All-NBA team. He's currently averaging 27/7/3 so there's a good chance he could do it.

If they come up short in the playoffs again this year, he's definitely someone that I'd call on. He obviously has relationships with Danny/Hardy and he'd make a great 1/2 punch with Lauri going forward.
 
Tremendous Upside said:
People are quick to point out that Lauri benefits from playing with Mike (and I agree, to an extent), but since this discussion is about Conley's value, it's worth remembering that Lauri also makes Mike look better. When you have a guy who's posting all-NBA efficiency numbers while doing a ton of assisted volume scoring, you can be sure it shows up in the stats of your starting PG.

Mike has also been shooting better lately (he's 15/31, or 48%, from the perimeter in his last 5 games). Overall, he's on the upswing offensively, but it's his defense that remains awful, and at his age he's trending down there long-term (if there IS a long-term).
Click to expand...
This year has been a best case scenario with Conley, imo. Just a few months ago it looked like we would have to attach assets to him in order to trade him, now we'll likely get a decent return for him. If we can get something for him now it's probably time to move on from him, I don't like the idea of paying him $24M next year at age 36.
 
YoungJefe said:
Jaylen Brown only has two years left on his deal and will be eligible for a 5 yr/$290M super max this offseason if he makes an All-NBA team. He's currently averaging 27/7/3 so there's a good chance he could do it.

If they come up short in the playoffs again this year, he's definitely someone that I'd call on. He obviously has relationships with Danny/Hardy and he'd make a great 1/2 punch with Lauri going forward.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling he'd be about as thrilled to be in Utah as Donovan was.
 
Jingled said:
I get the feeling he'd be about as thrilled to be in Utah as Donovan was.
Click to expand...
Meh, Brown doesn't strike me as that type of player/person. He was the #3 recruit that could've played at any major program in the country coming out of HS and chose to go to UC Berkeley because of their elite academics. You'd only make the trade if he was also immediately signed that super max deal so you'd have him locked up long term and I'm sure that'd be very appealing to him. I also think that the chance to potentially lead a team and get out of Jayson Tatum's shadow could be appealing for him as well. The fact that he played for Hardy and Danny was the one who drafted him doesn't hurt either.

Despite the Jazz being a small market team, Don was able to rise to superstardom here and got one of the best selling sneakers in the league during that process. Hopefully ASW goes great for us this year too, that could start to shift some of the opinions about Utah around the league, imo.

ETA: Yes I understand it's a huge long shot, but he's still someone that I'd call about.
 
Last edited:
YoungJefe said:
It seems like Atlanta is pretty desperate to move his contract so we'd likely get some assets for taking it. I'm just not a huge fan of playing Lauri at the 3, they tried it in Cleveland with mixed results but I think he's a much better 4 going forward. Especially considering Kessler is a non shooter right now and Collins has really struggled shooting this year.

OG Anunoby makes the most sense, IMO. He's only 25 years old, has a reasonable deal ($18M next year, $19M PO in 2025) and he reportedly wants out of Toronto. He strikes me as a guy that could be similar to Lauri in terms of having the potential to make a major leap with a bigger role. The two biggest concerns with him though are his injury history and the fact that we'd only have him under team control for 1.5 seasons. The Raptors also reportedly want at least two unprotected 1st round picks for him.
Click to expand...
At first I thought Lauri was more suited as a 4 as well until I see him play this year and totally dominates most 3s with his length. He just bullies them either by backing them down and driving to the hole, rising and shooting over them or coming round the pick and just taking them to the hole.

I'm totally convinced now he's better at the 3.
 
ONE LOVE said:
At first I thought Lauri was more suited as a 4 as well until I see him play this year and totally dominates most 3s with his length. He just bullies them either by backing them down and driving to the hole, rising and shooting over them or coming round the pick and just taking them to the hole.

I'm totally convinced now he's better at the 3.
Click to expand...
What about defensively?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top