What's new
By:

2023 Trade Rumors and Gossip Involving the Jazz

Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...

120M per year contracts incoming lmao.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can put the blame on Don and Rudy....whatever they are also the reason why we were good in the first place so put pieces around them that make sense. The issue isn't that it's anyone's fault, the issue is that Conley did not make sense next to Mitchell and it exacerbated the issues we had. The assets we used to get Conley could have been used to go after a wing. Joe was the perfect backcourt partner for Don, and the fixation on getting a "true PG" to pair Don was bad. I get it, everyone wants a two way wing and these guys are hard to find but that does not mean you hard commit to something that is doomed to fail. The FO never acknowledged the weaknesses of the roster and instead doubled and tripled down on a mix of players that obviously did not work. IMO, it is not enough to approach the situation with an attitude of "well it's hard so lets not try and instead commit to something we know will fail".

To be fair to Conley, there were many opportunities to get good fitting players. It's not like we blew all of our chances to do so by trading Conley. We had plenty of of opportunities to draft/trade for players that we desperately needed but instead sat on our hands. If the former FO had as much desire to get some decent wings as they did backup centers (seriously Davis, Favors, Bradley, Dok.....how is it even possible to piss away so much) we're probably in the playoffs right now with Mitchell+Gobert and looking dangerous. I don't think the FO needed to be perfect to build around Mitchell/Gobert, they just needed to be a little bit better.
 
KqWIN said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Jazz lost zero playoff games due to having a small backcourt
 
sip said:
dagger was still the Dok pick and poor use of the MLE's.
Click to expand...
This pick still haunts me today. There were two players still on the board that were the obvious next pick. One would’ve been the perfect fit next to Mitchell, the other one would’ve been perfect playing next to Gobert, but somehow Dok found his way to #2 on the jazz big board. Never mind the fact he was in the second round for every other team. Lol
 
KqWIN said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait… what?
 
KqWIN said:
I dunno what part you're confused about, but I do not think Conley's contract was positive and certainly not at a first round pick evaluation.
Click to expand...

I don’t understand how Conley was viewed as a negative when the deal doesn’t happen without him and the Lakers best returning asset was from the team that took Conley in the deal.
 
HeatCheck said:
It's all water under the bridge but a Jrue or Caruso type would've been the ideal fit next to Don.

I'm still very skeptical that Garland and Don are going to be a long term fit in Cleveland, fwiw.
Click to expand...
Jrue and Caruso would work on one side of the court but neither provides the playmaking we would have needed to supplement next to Donovan. I would have added a guy like that if we could to throw into the mix with Conley and Don if we could though... and limit the minutes we were super small in the backcourt.
 
KqWIN said:
You can put the blame on Don and Rudy....whatever they are also the reason why we were good in the first place so put pieces around them that make sense. The issue isn't that it's anyone's fault, the issue is that Conley did not make sense next to Mitchell and it exacerbated the issues we had. The assets we used to get Conley could have been used to go after a wing.
Click to expand...
Which wing could we have got with those assets? Which wing was traded at that time that changes things? Which acquisitions did the Conley trade prohibit?

KqWIN said:
Joe was the perfect backcourt partner for Don, and the fixation on getting a "true PG" to pair Don was bad. I get it, everyone wants a two way wing and these guys are hard to find but that does not mean you hard commit to something that is doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
I agree on Joe and wrote as much when Ricky was here. I think it would have had some limitations and Mike added some playmaking and flexibility we wouldn't have had.
KqWIN said:
The FO never acknowledged the weaknesses of the roster and instead doubled and tripled down on a mix of players that obviously did not work. IMO, it is not enough to approach the situation with an attitude of "well it's hard so lets not try and instead commit to something we know will fail".
Click to expand...
I agree with this... but not sure that is the fault of the Conley deal.
KqWIN said:
To be fair to Conley, there were many opportunities to get good fitting players. It's not like we blew all of our chances to do so by trading Conley. We had plenty of of opportunities to draft/trade for players that we desperately needed but instead sat on our hands. If the former FO had as much desire to get some decent wings as they did backup centers (seriously Davis, Favors, Bradley, Dok.....how is it even possible to piss away so much) we're probably in the playoffs right now with Mitchell+Gobert and looking dangerous. I don't think the FO needed to be perfect to build around Mitchell/Gobert, they just needed to be a little bit better.
Click to expand...
This is the view I have. A different deal may have been better but the follow ups were so bad it likely didn't matter. Also if we had nailed 1 or 2 of the transactions that we whiffed on then it may have had a huge impact. Since the value is good on the Conley deal... and its like the 6th or 7th thing down on the list of "WTF went wrong" then I'm not sure we can keep looking back at that deal as bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top