What's new
By:

Jazz have "zeroed in" on Jabari Parker

Burks can also make plays for other people on the team. Something that even in my loftiest Kanter dreams I have never felt would be something he did with enough regularity or proficiency to mention.

And I haven't given up on Kanter, BTW. But if we're talking about people to part with to get something we want more...?
 
Vermin said:
Kanter is the most dispensable of the group. Would not miss a beat without him.

Burks is 20ppg guy. We would be insane to not try an swap burks for kanter in any trade scenario.
Click to expand...

Kanter is worth more to us than he is to others. Better to just sit back and be patient as he develops. I agree about Burks, though.

Favors is likely the player Cavs or Bucks would want, as they both need rim protection. If it was Favors and #5, I'd do it. If it was any of our players and #5, I'd probably do it. I just really dislike the idea of a player, #5, and more picks that were hard to acquire being gambled w/ so flippantly.
 
Sexual Favors said:
Your post would make sense if we were talking about giving up just Burks. The package being discussed is #5, Burks, GSW 17, etc. That is a crazy amount to give up for a player who still has a lot of question marks surrounding his game (passing, defense, pace of play, shot selection, weight, position, etc.)

Especially when an equally good, or better player could be available at 5.
Click to expand...

I suppose only time will tell. I'd just have to go on record stating that I believe 5, Burks and GSW '17 will be a huge steal.
 
Sexual Favors said:
Kanter is worth more to us than he is to others. Better to just sit back and be patient as he develops. I agree about Burks, though.

Favors is likely the player Cavs or Bucks would want, as they both need rim protection. If it was Favors and #5, I'd do it. If it was any of our players and #5, I'd probably do it. I just really dislike the idea of a player, #5, and more picks that were hard to acquire being gambled w/ so flippantly.
Click to expand...

So I guess what you're indirectly saying is that Burks & GSW'17 > Favors.
 
I've also changed my stance on including Favors: I would have a real tough time parting with Favors for Parker. Adding Parker while losing Favors could be catastrophic for an already very bad defense. If we're talking Embiid or Wiggins, even, then pull that trigger.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I've also changed my stance on including Favors: I would have a real tough time parting with Favors for Parker. Adding Parker while losing Favors could be catastrophic for an already very bad defense. If we're talking Embiid or Wiggins, even, then pull that trigger.
Click to expand...

Gobert was 13 REB and 3.4 blks per 36, and defense was best w/ him on floor, not Favors. If he adds weight, and can learn to catch in the post...
 
infection said:
Have a hard time envisioning how leaking Jabari as a smokescreen would be beneficial. It doesn't really help them if they want to move up. It doesn't help them if they want to move down. I doubt it's going to trick someone in the top 4 to take Jabari so that someone else 'falls' to us. Just not sure, unless we're looking to trade the pick for some player/asset and want the illusion that we really want to keep it.
Click to expand...

I could see this really being about the 23rd.

He has already said that he has gotten offers for it. If people believe that you want to spend that pick to move up they may offer you more for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top