What's new

¤ Top 6 Reasons why a no trade is a good thing ¤

Hotdog

Well-Known Member
1. Saving our young players from injury

While it may be frustrating that our core of young players are riding the bench most of the time, the good news is we are saving our young players from career threatening injuries. I know that sounds a little dumb, but it really is a good thing. Young people tend to work harder instead of working smarter which can lead them to over extending themselves and trying too hard, and playing a lot of minutes increases the chances they get too fatigued and hurt themselves. Its not likely that they will win a championship anytime soon anyways, so it is probably better to have them injury free ,and at their best when they are in their prime. One bad knee injury could affect them the rest of their careers. Its probably better they learn as much as they can before they go full bore so they arent wasting movements and putting themselves in bad spots. A simple box out might save them from coming down on someones foot trying to rebound in traffic. Not to mention we are saving their legs from putting on a lot of miles.


2. We get to watch Millsap a little longer

Someone mentioned in the game thread after the Warriors game that it was weird that it might have been Paul's last game in a Utah uniform. I hadn't thought about that until then , and I was a little disappointed I didnt take that all in while watching the game. Now I can try to appreciate what he is about for a little longer. There is a pretty good chance he isnt back next year and I wouldnt mind seeing one of my favorite Jazz players of all time finish out the season with us on a high note and he can get a more proper good bye instead of being shipped off suddenly out of no where.


3. Our chances of advancing in the playoffs are better

The team has been playing better lately and that has a lot to do with our depth, and continuity. Making a change right now could kill our team chemistry. Everything seems to be running smoother lately and it can go a long way in finding rhythm and confidence in the playoffs. Who knows. Maybe we could get hot and do some damage. On paper we should be destroying teams down low. Maybe this year we take it to teams with our bigs. We make fun of playoff experience, but I think it can help if the guys know how to use it. We could surprise somebody.


4. We keep our cap room and flexibility

The explanation is obvious here. Not every trade works out and we could end up with a terrible player with possibly a contract we dont want (Im looking at you Marvin)

5. We keep our picks for now

For a lot of us the draft is a big deal and a lot of fun. A trade could possibly mean we give up one or two of our picks and then the 2013 draft will no longer mean anything to the team. Two picks coming up sounds like a lot of fun. I dont want to miss out on that.


6. We dont help out any other teams.

Trading away one of our bigs to some team could help them out a lot. That could come back to bite us. Especially if its a team in the west. I could see Paul just tearing us apart if he was on the Clippers. Chris Paul would make him look really good. Even if it were a team in the east. One or two games could make a difference in playoff seeding or even making the playoffs if we were to lose to a team with Paul Millsap on it.
 
Add 7. We don't make a trade that we'll regret. I don't mean this in the pessimistic, uber conservative sense. Mostly in the sense that if we give up one of our young guys for another prospect (cough Burks for Bledsoe) we may see the one we trade for bust and the one we trade bust out... or even the one we trade for may be good but the other one better.
 
Add 7. We don't make a trade that we'll regret. I don't mean this in the pessimistic, uber conservative sense. Mostly in the sense that if we give up one of our young guys for another prospect (cough Burks for Bledsoe) we may see the one we trade for bust and the one we trade bust out... or even the one we trade for may be good but the other one better.

This is what I'm most afraid of. I hate the thought of us throwing Burks in on that deal.
 
Add 7. We don't make a trade that we'll regret. I don't mean this in the pessimistic, uber conservative sense. Mostly in the sense that if we give up one of our young guys for another prospect (cough Burks for Bledsoe) we may see the one we trade for bust and the one we trade bust out... or even the one we trade for may be good but the other one better.

Or you don't trade for Harden because you want to be too careful about protecting your assets.
 
Nice post, Hack. I'm out of rep, but will try to get back to you as soon as I can.
Also, nice addition Sneakers.

I'd be very surprised if Burks were traded. I think the FO has seen his value. His shooting has improved, his FT % is up, and his athleticism is off the charts. He probably can be a backup PG, especially if the SG is a good ballhandler/facilitator. I doubt he's included in a trade unless the return is very, very high for us.
 
Nice post, Hack. I'm out of rep, but will try to get back to you as soon as I can.
Also, nice addition Sneakers.

I'd be very surprised if Burks were traded. I think the FO has seen his value. His shooting has improved, his FT % is up, and his athleticism is off the charts. He probably can be a backup PG, especially if the SG is a good ballhandler/facilitator. I doubt he's included in a trade unless the return is very, very high for us.

I hope I don't have to quote this post again later and say your doubt was in vain.
 
Bledsoe = Harden???

Not the point and you know that. It now seems self evident we should have traded a lot for Harden, but at the time most people thought Harden wasn't going to be a star player much less worth a MAX deal. The doubters were wrong.

Bledsoe is a guy who wouldn't even have to be signed to a MAX deal. The question is how much is he worth on potential? You wouldn't give up the same ransom for Bledsoe, but it's not often you have the chips to get a player like that. I don't want to see us make a bad deal, but I don't want to see us lose a player like Bledsoe out of fear when he's in our grasp.
 
Not the point and you know that. It now seems self evident we should have traded a lot for Harden, but at the time most people thought Harden wasn't going to be a star player much less worth a MAX deal. The doubters were wrong.

Bledsoe is a guy who wouldn't even have to be signed to a MAX deal. The question is how much is he worth on potential? You wouldn't give up the same ransom for Bledsoe, but it's not often you have the chips to get a player like that. I don't want to see us make a bad deal, but I don't want to see us lose a player like Bledsoe out of fear when he's in our grasp.
I realize that's not your point, but the difference in value/quality between Harden and Bledsoe is so great that the the situations aren't comparable, at least from where I sit (and my early love for Harden is well documented on this site).

You need elite talent to win in the NBA. It's hard to overpay for a top 10 player. Bledsoe isn't a guy you sell the farm for.
 
Yeah but Harden was already a borderline all star, averaging 17 on .48 and 39 3pfg. Bledsoe hasn't even proven to be a starter or anything more than an energy spark off the bench.
 
I'd be willing to go Millsap plus at least one pick and a backup but I'm hesitant to add Burks or Hayward. Knowing our FO, zero chance of Burks or Hay being gone so hopefully something with Millsap and pick(s).
 
I realize that's not your point, but the difference in value/quality between Harden and Bledsoe is so great that the the situations aren't comparable, at least from where I sit (and my early love for Harden is well documented on this site).

And my point is only that getting better players means giving up some of our darlings. It may be that we miraculously acquired the 4 pillars of a dynasty in Favors/Kanter/Hayward/Burks. I think it's unlikely, but knowing who to swap out in order to find the best foundation of a championship team is why GM's make the money.

To my mind, Bledsoe makes us better even if we lost Hayward or Burks. I just hope it's Hayward, not Burks, since I think Burks is the better player. But getting Bledsoe means more to me than either of those players.
 
And my point is only that getting better players means giving up some of our darlings. It may be that we miraculously acquired the 4 pillars of a dynasty in Favors/Kanter/Hayward/Burks. I think it's unlikely, but knowing who to swap out in order to find the best foundation of a championship team is why GM's make the money.

To my mind, Bledsoe makes us better even if we lost Hayward or Burks. I just hope it's Hayward, not Burks, since I think Burks is the better player. But getting Bledsoe means more to me than either of those players.
I agree that it's highly unlikely. We don't see Bledsoe the same way is all.
 
I realize that's not your point, but the difference in value/quality between Harden and Bledsoe is so great that the the situations aren't comparable, at least from where I sit (and my early love for Harden is well documented on this site).

You need elite talent to win in the NBA. It's hard to overpay for a top 10 player. Bledsoe isn't a guy you sell the farm for.

How is Millsap and Raja selling the farm?

If the Bledsoe doesn't go to Boston, and the Jazz don't end up with Bledsoe, this team **** the bed. It's that simple. And they don't need to put Burks in to make the deal work. What other deals out there give LA a better shot at a title? Heck, give the Clippers Al or Millsap and anyone else on the team not named Hayward, Favors, Kanter, Burks. There are deals to made out there. Give LA Millsap, Foye and Marvin. You can't tell me that doesn't make them deep and good everywhere. There is no need to touch the big four, and there is no deal out there where the Clippers can get more.
 
And they don't need to put Burks in to make the deal work...there is no deal out there where the Clippers can get more.
Pure speculation.

As for your first question, it might help if you read the post(s) I was responding to (the one about giving up some of out "darlings" in particular).
 
Top