2023 Trade Rumors and Gossip Involving the Jazz

[KqWIN]

Yep. I hated the Conley trade but what really sunk the jazz was Udoka pick and using the MLE on Favor and Gay when there were younger players on the market that made more sense. Replace Dok with Bane or McDaniels and Favors with the stretch big that we should have gone after in Bobby Portis and I think we may already have a championship right now.

Obviously the Lakers had to use a pick to get off of Westbrooks contract and big part of their rise is AD being healthy, but you also have to credit them for their work on their margins.

1) Even though it had been a major blindspot, they did actually make moves to make a functional team that makes sense fit wise around their stars. The Jazz never acknowledged their mistakes and committed to the tiny, no defense team around Gobert.

2) They absolutely nailed the Austin Reeves draft pick.

3) Schroeder has become an invaluable signing for them for the min.

4) Walker was up and down through the season but he just won them a playoff game. It won’t take picks to get rid of him. Jazz MLE signings were dog ****. Ed Davis, Favors, Gay….that is a horrific run.

5) Rui has been huge for them in the playoffs and cost very little through trade.

If the Lakers win another championship it will be because LeBron and AD are great. But without the good work on the margins they might not have made the playoffs at all. These little moves that don’t take a ton of investment can go a long way.

And this is a common theme with other teams still playing. Isn’t just the Lakers.

 

[homeytennis]

Austin Reaves was an UDFA.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Obviously the Lakers had to use a pick to get off of Westbrooks contract

I’m sorry, this is just not true. For all intents and purposes, they were already off of Russ’s contract. They used the pick to get players (and contracts) that they wanted, full stop.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The Conley move was fine in isolation for that time. The problem wasn’t really Conley, the problem was that DL “kept the powder dry” far too long, not acknowledging the coming cap crunch, and ended up pulling the trigger on Conley when he was the only option left before that crunch. Then we went hog-wild dumping any potential tradable asset for, well, I have no clue.

Yeah I just have a hard time seeing the Conley deal as bad. The net cost was cap space and 1 pick. The injuries sucked but they happen. Whiffing on every other pick and cap exception were bigger problems then draining other picks to offload salary while also not making additions on the margins with second round picks as the capital because you believe Miye Oni would fix the defense. I think the stars flaws also caused us to fail and everything else would have had to break perfect. It was very far from perfect. I just have a hard time saying that was the fault of the Conley deal.

 

[KqWIN]

I’m sorry, this is just not true. For all intents and purposes, they were already off of Russ’s contract. They used the pick to get players (and contracts) that they wanted, full stop.

Sure, I did not mean it that way but I can see how you thought that.

I do disagree, however, with @Handlogten's Heros assertion that we netted one pick back for Conley. Conley's contract was a negative in that trade....so I wouldn't count that as recouped value. Even if you don't think he was a negative we traded Vando, Beasley, NAW, and multiple seconds who were all clear positives so you can't just say we got that pick bc of Conley.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Sure, I did not mean it that way but I can see how you thought that.

I do disagree, however, with @Handlogten's Heros assertion that we netted one pick back for Conley. Conley's contract was a negative in that trade....so I wouldn't count that as recouped value. Even if you don't think he was a negative we traded Vando, Beasley, NAW, and multiple seconds who were all clear positives so you can't just say we got that pick bc of Conley.

It wasn't negative and it was necessary. If we don't have Mike to send to Minny they don't send Russell to LA.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

If you want a good laugh go listen to Locke today. He has no idea how things work. He thinks you can offer 140% raises on extensions and is baffled why no one is talking about it. It is true the extensions can start at 140% but you can only give 8% raises from there. He thinks is 140% each year... when I saw the subject I knew not to listen but couldn't help myself.

 

[KqWIN]

It wasn't negative and it was necessary. If we don't have Mike to send to Minny they don't send Russell to LA.

Eh, players with negative value are moved all the time and the move couldn't have been made without them. Doesn't change the fact that they had negative value.

And again, even if you think Conley was a pure positive there was a lot of other players/assets that were clearly positives so I would not count Conley's outgoing value as a first round pick. No chance in hell we would have gotten a first for Conley outright.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Even if that first wasn't all because of Mike some of it was... and its a higher quality first than we gave up for him so... if the net cost of having Mike is 1.5 late firsts or whatever... its just not a bad deal. The cap mismanagement and signings and picks from then on were a much much bigger problem.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Eh, players with negative value are moved all the time and the move couldn't have been made without them. Doesn't change the fact that they had negative value.

And again, even if you think Conley was a pure positive there was a lot of other players/assets that were clearly positives so I would not count Conley's outgoing value as a first round pick. No chance in hell we would have gotten a first for Conley outright.

Vando, Beasley and the seconds weren't getting that quality of a first either... so net cost is 2 late/protected firsts and a piece of a better first... its just not "bad" for what we received.

 

[KqWIN]

Vando, Beasley and the seconds weren't getting that quality of a first either... so net cost is 2 late/protected firsts and a piece of a better first... its just not "bad" for what we received.

It's not bad from a value standpoint, but I do still think that Mitchell/Conley was a duo bound to fail and that should have been recognized even without hindsight. It wasn't our biggest issue, but I think commitment to the tiny backcourt was indeed a mistake even if the value wasn't bad.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It's not bad from a value standpoint, but I do still think that Mitchell/Conley was a duo bound to fail and that should have been recognized even without hindsight. It wasn't our biggest issue, but I think commitment to the tiny backcourt was indeed a mistake even if the value wasn't bad.

That's the challenge building around Donovan. I think they could have worked around it in some other ways but I'm not sure what deal you do in place of the Conley deal that makes us better. I'm not sure its fair to put the small backcourt issue on the Conley deal as finding a big pg or a sg sized guy with playmaking ability is difficult. You could shift Joe to that role but what wing are you going to get to help the defense? Is it going to make Don play defense or make Rudy a more fungible piece.

I think the flaws of our stars meant we had to put perfect pieces around them to make it work... and even in hindsight I don't see those perfect pieces. If we had one uninterrupted postseason from Conley (injuries, baby making, etc.) maybe it turns out different, but I don't think so.

Adding a couple flexible two way pieces after the Conley deal maybe changes things and you can stagger Don and Mike a bit. I think Quin built a good but slightly gimmicky system that was exposed a bit in the playoffs and he didn't have the roster flexibility or desire to adapt. Conley deal contributed to that but also provided a lot of things we really needed.