What's new
By:

2023 Trade Rumors and Gossip Involving the Jazz

fishonjazz said:
This. Westbricks contract was trash for his production for the lakers. They LOVED getting rid of him. The deal couldn't have happened without westbrick so now that means his contract was a postive? Ya, no. Just because a player with a crap contract is traded doesn't make that contract not crap.
Click to expand...
You know they could have just waived him… right?

They traded for players and Westbrook’s salary was the ballast.
 
fishonjazz said:
That isn't all we traded though. we also took westbrooks contract off their hands. That is something the jazz did for the lakers along with improving their team. You say "all we traded" as if we didn't trade much. We traded 4 players and 2 picks and took on a horrible contract for 1 protected pick. That is 7 assets for 1 unprotected pick. None of those assets from us could be good assets or it wouldn't have took so much to aquire a protected pick. I remember when we could get an unprotected pick for taking westbrook without giving up anything else. The fact that we had to use 7 parts to get 1 protected pick shows how conley was viewed. If conley was a positive then we should have been able to get that protected pick for less than 6 MORE assets on top of conley. We had to add 6 more pieces to get 1 protected pick. +

How often does a good player on a positive contract need 6 more pieces to get 1 protected pick? Never?
Click to expand...
I think it was just a very bad trade, just like the Bogey trade. In spite of the Ainge worship the FO made a few moves that were bad, if not really bad. The spin on it even from the media is funny. We are at a point were every move and every decision is given a pass because of what we got for Rudy and Donny.
 
fishonjazz said:
I remember when everyone was certain we could get an unprotected first (or 2) for simply taking westbrook. Not even giving any good players.
Click to expand...
I guess you can remember something that isn’t true. But that wasn’t a thing, dear fish.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I guess you can remember something that isn’t true. But that wasn’t a thing, dear fish.
Click to expand...
Man I wish I could find the thread when everyone was talking about it. Hell, some were saying we could get 2 first round picks for taking him off the lakers hands. I would be surprised if you weren't actually involved in these discussions. The usual folks were. This was before the season started.
 
gomretat said:
I think it was just a very bad trade, just like the Bogey trade. In spite of the Ainge worship the FO made a few moves that were bad, if not really bad. The spin on it even from the media is funny. We are at a point were every move and every decision is given a pass because of what we got for Rudy and Donny.
Click to expand...
It was fine... the Bogey deal was rough but it was about more than just one player for another. The money they saved got them out of the tax in that one. I think Ainge overplayed his hand a bit and may have done better making a move for Westbrook in the offseason. Maybe we get one pick unprotected and end up losing 5 or so more games without KO. The deal he ended up making was fine but I think he went for a homerun and had to pivot a bit.
 
fishonjazz said:
Man I wish I could find the thread when everyone was talking about it. Hell, some were saying we could get 2 first round picks for taking him off the lakers hands. I would be surprised if you weren't actually involved in these discussions. The usual folks were. This was before the season started.
Click to expand...
We would have had to give up good players though. I had pitched a preseason deal where they could essentially have whatever combo of Conley, Bogey, Vando, Beasley, JC they wanted for two picks and Westbrook. Said I would do it for 1 if they weren't with it. It was partly because I knew we were still too good to get to the bottom 5 of the league and partly cuz the Westbrook deal helps clear the salary deck essentially.

There were some doing the math saying the contract was horrible and worth one pick by itself then saying the other guys were worth a pick by themselves and doing the math that way... but it just doesn't (or didn't) work that way.
 
fishonjazz said:
Man I wish I could find the thread when everyone was talking about it. Hell, some were saying we could get 2 first round picks for taking him off the lakers hands. I would be surprised if you weren't actually involved in these discussions. The usual folks were. This was before the season started.
Click to expand...
I remember the conversations. The deal would’ve went some combination of Quin/Conley/Bogey/Clarkson/Vando/Beasley (this basic idea was being kicked around for several months which is why there is such a range) for Westbrook (and maybe other garbage salary of theirs).

I am quite certain “everyone“ didn’t think we could fetch the picks just because we were taking on Westbrooks deal. The rub is that the Lakers are all in on maybe the GOAT in his late 30’s and a sometimes top-10 player that they leveraged everything they could get who will likely only get less durable over time, so the Lakers would have an urgency to have a much better roster.

What was the theory then is what transpired: The Lakers sought to turn Westbrook into much more complementary players in order to improve. They traded him with a high-value asset (despite that it left something to be desired) and got players they wanted.

Again - and I cannot stress this enough - The Lakers could have just waived Westbrook and it would not have changed their cap picture.

The TLDR; is the Lakers made the trade to get good players and they did exactly that.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I guess you can remember something that isn’t true. But that wasn’t a thing, dear fish.
Click to expand...
I’ll own up to this. I thought the floor for taking on Westbrook and giving up decent roleplayers was one unprotected or lightly protected draft pick.

That pick essentially disappearing after only one season if the Lakers hit the lottery down right shocked me. I was also surprised that we agreed to a deal that messed around with the Minnesota picks we already owned.
 
Pinhead said:
I’ll own up to this. I thought the floor for taking on Westbrook and giving up decent roleplayers was one unprotected or lightly protected draft pick.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to “own up” to anything. I bolded the operative difference: we were talking about the Lakers actually receiving useful players. They were looking for actual players, not just trying to get rid of Westbrook.
 
fishonjazz said:
Man I wish I could find the thread when everyone was talking about it. Hell, some were saying we could get 2 first round picks for taking him off the lakers hands. I would be surprised if you weren't actually involved in these discussions. The usual folks were. This was before the season started.
Click to expand...

Anyone realistic wasn’t saying that. There was a point where HH and I were thinking Conley plus fillers for Westbrook and a pick swap was the absolute lowest we’d go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top