2019 Trade Deadline Discussion

[LoPo]

This is such a stupid argument on both sides. Sure some older teams win titles and all title teams have key younger players. Almost all "older" title winning teams create title pedigree well before they win it additional times.

We don't have title pedigree or superstars so we are wasting our time with this conversation.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

This is such a stupid argument on both sides. Sure some older teams win titles and all title teams have key younger players. Almost all "older" title winning teams create title pedigree well before they win it additional times.

We don't have title pedigree or superstars so we are wasting our time with this conversation.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

 

[infection]

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

I don't see Gobert leaving as long as Utah pays him. He's also probably not going to be as highly sought out/recruited as other top stars.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I think the bigger question is being able to keep Gobert after he’s 30. So far he’s been pretty loyal, but if our best efforts of building around him and Mitchell in the next couple years leads to some flawed teams who are middle of the pack, cultures are such that anticipating having those two as building blocks forever would be a shaky strategy.

I think we will have no issue retaining Rudy. My issue is just whether he will hold up well into his 30s or if because he's a big his knees/feet give out. I can see him being extremely productive long-term.

I don't think a really good team or contender would outbid us for his services. He's a great player but a tricky fit for some teams. So between being the team that was loyal to him and helped him become what he is, having a good relationship with him (seemingly), being the best team to maximize what he brings, and also his best chance at winning... I think he stays. We aren't NO yet... where we are capped out with no young prospects or assets to move stuff around. Two straight years to the second round... he got his DPOY here... I'm not worried about losing him. He's said he thinks it means more to win a championship with a team built.

 

[LoPo]

So we have to trade Gobert and Mitchell if they don't get title pedigree before they turn 30?

And I don't see how it's a stupid argument if you're citing the basis of the argument as the driving force behind making a trade. It seems like you're saying we have to win a title before Gobert turns 30 because you have to win one before your best player turns 30 to have a chance to win titles after they turn 30.

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

I said it seems like you're saying, not you are saying. Like if you follow your own logic, the Jazz should cut bait with Gobert if he hasnt won a ring in his 20's (if the only thing you care about is ring or bust, which it seems like is your thing).

And Gobert isnt an option, he's a system.

 

[Alfalfa]

I never said trade Mitchell or Gobert EVER. Classic Cy making crap up.

I simply said that most teams who win titles have younger guys leading the charge. In response, you said "Most team dont win rings until their best players are in their early 30's." You said that. Not me. I copied and pasted what you said.

So you implied that most teams don't start winning titles until guys are in their early 30's. That is a completely false statement outside of Dallas, Houston, and Boston with teams led by Dirk, Hakeem/Clyde, and Pierce, Ray and Garnett - ELITE PLAYERS.

I think we rely too much on guys who are getting upwards in age and experience AND have zero championship pedigree so far. I think we all agree that Rubio isn't a title winning quality PG yet we play him 30+ minutes per night. Same could be said for Ingles in terms of relying on him so much. We also rely on Korver, Crowder, and Favors who are role players who are getting up there in age/experience.

Gobert is a great player, but is maybe a 3rd option on a contender.

Or the Spurs, or MJ, or or or. It is generally a correct statement that teams with experienced stars win championships. GSW is unusual for having started winning when their stars were in their mid twenties.

 

[LoPo]

I think we will have no issue retaining Rudy. My issue is just whether he will hold up well into his 30s or if because he's a big his knees/feet give out. I can see him being extremely productive long-term.

I don't think a really good team or contender would outbid us for his services. He's a great player but a tricky fit for some teams. So between being the team that was loyal to him and helped him become what he is, having a good relationship with him (seemingly), being the best team to maximize what he brings, and also his best chance at winning... I think he stays. We aren't NO yet... where we are capped out with no young prospects or assets to move stuff around. Two straight years to the second round... he got his DPOY here... I'm not worried about losing him. He's said he thinks it means more to win a championship with a team built.

I agree 100%. Good post.

I think we have Gobert as long as we want to pay to keep him. I love Gobert for the length of his current contract, but I do have major concerns about his long term success in the league. Ideally, I think he is a 4th or 5th option for an offense yet we currently seem to rely on him like he is the 2nd or 3rd option. If we want him to have a long career using the best of his abilities, we need to let him focus primarily on his defense and rebounding while giving him plenty of rest throughout the seasons. His next contract scares the crap out of me because a max or near max deal, should we offer one, could cripple us when he is 30+. Centers with his size and skill set seem to plummet as they get older. Most of the worst contracts in the league are to big men.

 

[LoPo]

I said it seems like you're saying, not you are saying. Like if you follow your own logic, the Jazz should cut bait with Gobert if he hasnt won a ring in his 20's (if the only thing you care about is ring or bust, which it seems like is your thing).

And Gobert isnt an option, he's a system.

I never said cut anybody. Can you read or just troll?

I said that we rely on an older roster too much and we need to find a player or two before the deadline to help take some weight off of them. Damn man, you just like to be a pain don't you?

Read the bolded sentence above Cy. Be better.

 

[DasJazz]

Remember when the trade deadline discussion thread was actually about trades? Me either.

 

[Sandman822]

Or the Spurs, or MJ, or or or. It is generally a correct statement that teams with experienced stars win championships. GSW is unusual for having started winning when their stars were in their mid twenties.

I don't think they were unusual tbh, the LeBron era Heat set that precedent before them. OKC also got to the finals with all of their future MVPs in their early 20s iirc.

Also I don't think that Durant ever signs with the 73 win Warriors if LeBron didn't lay down the foundations for star players willingly teaming up with other star players in their prime. LeBron took a metric ****ton of criticism for it and I don't think Durant would be able to handle that if he was the first to do it as he also got a metric ****ton of criticism because he joined a 73 win team, but at least people were able to make the comparison to LeBron's FA in 2010 whether you think it's a fair comparison or not.