This is my exact stance. Good to know I am not alone.
Dennis Lindsey "flexibility for the future"
- Thread starter Lakers_Slapper
- Start date
This is my exact stance. Good to know I am not alone.
SojoDave
Well-Known Member
Initially, I was disappointed we didn't get any immediate assets to help us. However, I know why DL did this trade. If he kept Kanter, Kanter would get even more disgruntled because Rudy would keep improving and taking more of his minutes. You would have to fork over 10 to 12 million a year to keep an inefficient player who doesn't produce wins. You would be stunting Gobert's development and probably Favor's development. Plus, this could prevent you from paying Gobert when his rookie deal is over. DL had to make a choice and his choice was Gobert and Favors. I think that's the right choice. I just wish we could have got Reggie Jackson or Dragic. Hopefully the 2018 draft choice could help DL move up in next years draft or trade for a good vet wing.
So, the Jazz would be better off holding a guy who does not fit and is unhappy, in the hope that the other 29 teams will come to their senses and realize that Kanter is as valuable as jazzfanz think he is, and not what a highly paid, experienced GM found his value to be by talking to other GMs? Got it. Addition through subtraction.
I still don't get how getting 4 assets, 5 if you count the cap space from the Perk buy out, is getting nothing in return.
I thought we just wanted a young player and a pick? Sounds like we got a lot more than we were shopping for, but whatevs.
I thought we just wanted a young player and a pick? Sounds like we got a lot more than we were shopping for, but whatevs.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
It takes two to tango. Jazz may go after guys like Matthews, DMC, Middleton, McDaniels, etc. but there's no guarantee any of those players will sign with Utah. There was an INTERESTING comment by Lindsey about flexibility to take on contracts at the draft. Makes me wonder if something has been explored but Team B just didn't want to pull the trigger (or the Jazz want to make sure they don't move up into the top-3). The Jefferson deal was agreed to in principle at the previous deadline. KOC said all that was missing was an additional first, which he picked up at the deadline.
I think the Jazz feel they have plenty of youth and a "burgeoning core." DL knows they need quality, not quantity.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
This trade straddles the line at 'fine', for me.
- if Pleiss is legit, we easily win this trade
- if we nail a pretty good FA, we easily win this trade
If neither of the above happens, we still have assets (including three first rounders in a single draft) to make a splash.
All of this beats re-signing a big-man who a) would hinder the development of one of our best players; b) a player who doesn't really fit in our long-term scheme in any way, shape, or form.
And to those of you who seem to think that centers with okay offense & no defense would fetch value on the market with an 8 figure salary-- we saw what a rich man's Enes Kanter (Big Al) fetched when the Jazz traded for him.
Thee Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
Honestly. I'm upset with the trade but at the end of the day I'm just happy Enes the menace is gone and someone else's problem
I've learned some stuff that I actually put into practice daily, as a business owner, and thats the principle that you should never have your hand forced. It's your responsibility (in this case, Dennis') to read the tea leaves and be proactive, rather than reactive.
I'm sure you already know this and deal with similar conundrums daily.
What about the principle of cut your losses? Don't throw good money after bad? Once you come to the conclusion that your team is better off with Kanter and that being rid of him sooner rather than later is the right path, you get what you can and move on.
It seems like a lot of guys here think Kanter was worth way more than what we got for him, even though most are glad to see him gone. They seem to think that we should have held him to eek a bit more value, even though that would be a negative for the team from here until he was gone.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Exactly. If Kanter really was the problem that he appeared to be, our front office should have known about it before Kanter asked for the trade. They should have been shopping him, and trying to trade him before that when they could still get top dollar. Mistakes happen, and this was one of them. We got an ok return, but it is most certainly not as good as it should have been, and that blame resides soley on DL.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
They should have came to that conclusion before Kanter asked to be traded.
This. As my reply to zman.
Cut your loss before competitors know you view the asset as a loss.