So if they win a championship with him on the team, does it still count as something that "hasn't worked out well"?
Building around Gobert
- Thread starter karl malone
- Start date
So if they win a championship with him on the team, does it still count as something that "hasn't worked out well"?
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Considering how this season has played out. . . he'll have a ring, but a lot of people will mentally put an * next to it. He was injured or ineffective for a lot of the season and out during most of the post season. If he comes back and has a better year next season, he likely stays. I think the money becomes too good after that to leave.So if they win a championship with him on the team, does it still count as something that "hasn't worked out well"?
I'm talking about next year. Cavs aren't winning anything this year. But with Irving and Love healthy, they have a good shot at winning the title. I think Love's trade was a very good idea. Just like Shaq going to the Heat was a good idea. Ring >> everything else.
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
I'm not a Kevin Love fan. I would have kept Wiggins and tried to jump start his development. Liked the moves for Mozgov, Smith and Shumpert. Probably would have tried to flip Bennett for Kanter tbh. Trading for Love was a huge risk because of his injury history. I'd have been dancing circles that I had LeBron back AND my franchise player of the future.
Mozgov, Thompson, Kanter, LeBron, Smith, Shumpert, Wiggins, Irving and Dellavedova is a solid team to work with. Plus, with or without LeBron, Blatt was a strange choice to coach them.
Mozgov, Thompson, Kanter, LeBron, Smith, Shumpert, Wiggins, Irving and Dellavedova is a solid team to work with. Plus, with or without LeBron, Blatt was a strange choice to coach them.
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Trading for Love was a bad move. Sure, the Cavs are better when they have him, and they'll look to re-sign him, but it would have been better to keep Bennett and Wiggins. Because it's not just about Wiggins and Bennett vs Love, it's about the financial flexibility they would have had as well. They would have been able to add another good player probably. And they probably would have been better as well.
What a huge biff.
Lebron pretty much sucks at being a GM. Someone should have talked him out of that request.
What a huge biff.
Lebron pretty much sucks at being a GM. Someone should have talked him out of that request.
orangello
Well-Known Member
I don't.
I still appreciate the effort though.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
We likely could haves traded Burks, Kanter and picks for Harde. I'd take the risk of him doing something no one has ever done (sign qo instead of a m ax deal).
karl malone
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't trade Hayward or Favors unless it was for an established superstar. My point wasn't that we should trade them, just that we should target elite offensive players. As someone pointed out earlier, we missed out on acquiring (or at least attempting to- although who knows if they did) Harden because we were over-committed to our core. I just don't want to see us get locked into a team that has a championship quality (which makes management reluctant to make significant changes), yet isn't championship caliber due to a roster imbalance. Maybe this type of move is a year too early, but I think addressing a roster deficiency (elite scorer is becoming harder by the day to fill) as soon as possible.
Last edited:
We don't need an elite scorer. We just need better spacing.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Exactly. When was the last time we heard a superstar (or even an all-star) have Utah on his list of preferred destinations? We aren't getting one in free agency, so why would a team trade a superstar? It won't be for monetary reasons like Harden. The landscape has changed: contracts are for 4 years (some at 5) and the cap is skyrocketing. So why, karl malone, would a team put a "star" on the market? It would have to be a situation like Cousins or Deron...either attitude or injury concerns. Is that a player we could build around? And does that player stay in Utah after 1 or 2 years (whatever is left on his contract at the time of the trade)?
Bloody hell! Utah's winning percentage after the all-star break equated to a 53-win pace. That's home court in the WC. And just 3 more wins puts them behind GS for 2nd place...with little contribution from our PG's, a weak bench due to injuries and no 4th big. Why not see how this squad develops before blowing it up? We have two fringe all-stars in Favors and Hayward and a legit DPOY in Gobert. Burks and Hood look pretty good. Now imagine if Exum develops! That's a team much like Atlanta, except our front line is better.
Listen, I'm as big a Harden fan as anyone that doesn't root for his team, but 28 other teams wished their teams had ponied up the offer that landed Harden and left the other 28 teams scratching their heads. We don't know the particulars, it just didn't happen. If Harden was playing hardball on the extension, it's easy to say in hindsight that it would be all worth it for OKC to hypothetically accept a hypothetical package that hypothetically vaults the Jazz into the pantheon of greatness suddenly.
But it didn't for us, and it did for only one team. We got Gobert on the edge of the 1st round in a possibly historically bad draft. We got Millsap 47th in one of the worst drafts I can recall and Wesley Matthews undrafted in what was supposed to be a poor draft. They got the greatest tandem in pro sports history in the middle of the first round in different years. You can run a great play for a great player, but ultimately, the shot goes in or it doesn't. You win some, you lose some.
(I'm not ranting at you, Cy)
karl malone
Well-Known Member
I feel like people are misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying we should blow the team up & rebuild again, I'm saying that we shouldn't get so locked into a core/plan that we are unable to adapt or take advantage of any opportunities that present themselves. We're in a league that has Paul, Blake, Jordan or Irving, LBJ, Love or Westbrook, Durant, Ibaka, or Harden, Dwight or Lillard, Aldridge all on the same team. I know some of those tandems may change, but superstars teaming up won't. I understand that we're small market & have to be careful of acquiring a superstar only to watch him walk, which is why you target players signed to long-term contracts, RFA's (doubt they risk millions to leave), or prospects. We're too good at this point to get our guy thru the draft so we need to do so by trade. I would be just as happy with a J.Parker or D.Russell (as it would likely mean trading Exum instead of Hayward or Favor) as I would be with an established star. I don't want to trade Hayward or Favors but I would if it brought in the right offensive player. They are both great players & would make great Pippens on a championship team but we still need our offensive Jordan to go along with our defensive Jordan. The league has changed drastically since the DET formula won them a championship & now it's even more difficult for small market teams (without that 2-way generational talent) to win a title. If it was up to me, we'd keep both Hayward & Favors, & instead trade who ever out of Exum, Burks, Hood, Burke, #12, future picks, etc to acquire that offensive superstar that I think will be necessary to win a championship. I don't care how he is acquired, so long that he is.