Do you want our pick to convey this year?

[HermanG]

To what end? What can the FO achieve on draft day that they couldnt've done otherwise?

Instead there's a significant chance the team is bringing in 2-3 new rookies, having 6-7 players on the roster with 0-2 years experience. Or shopping the picks at a discount. And if they do bring in 2-3 new rookies, then their hands are tied a single path: full tank.

Thats not the only path. Rookies/sophomores can be used as trade bait if there is a team that "blows it up" and wants to chase Flagg and Boozer.

So getting a guy like Caruso is on the table if Chicago decides to tank as they owe their 2025 FRP to Spurs with top 10 protection on it. Plus whoever the mystery guy is (I dont think Caruso is "left field" enough to be that guy, even if we werent connected to him).

However if there are no trade opportunities out there, DA has put us in position to pivot as well.

 

[HermanG]

You're not the only Finnish poster.

Yet you gave me an eye roll emoji and posted that comment in a thread where I'm the only Finnish poster actively discussing....

 

[HermanG]

No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.

So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?

I thought we just argued for about 2 pages where I said "preferences" and you said "value". Color me confused.

 

[homeytennis]

I just saw this: " The Jazz have allowed Otto Porter to return home to contemplate where he wants to finish the season, sources tell Tony Jones of The Athletic. The team is willing to negotiate a buyout with Porter, Jones adds, but it will have to be completed by March 1 to make him eligible for the playoffs with another organization."

 

[silesian]

So now its "no doubt" we wanted picks in 2024?

Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.

 

[fishonjazz]

Maybe you should.

Nah. Been a jazz fan for about 40 years. A single trade deadline isn't enough to make me act like the sky is falling.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I just saw this: " The Jazz have allowed Otto Porter to return home to contemplate where he wants to finish the season, sources tell Tony Jones of The Athletic. The team is willing to negotiate a buyout with Porter, Jones adds, but it will have to be completed by March 1 to make him eligible for the playoffs with another organization."

Yeah I'm sure we'd rather use the spot for someone with some upside and I'm sure if he's healthy he'd rather not ride the pine. Ryan and Danny will need their pound of flesh while OP jr.'s agent looks around for a suitor.

 

[HermanG]

Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.

Ok now you are being next level delusional. But you dont have to re litigate.... I'm going to do it for you. Lets show everyone who got dismantled.

You started your initial response by challenging the whole concept of optionality, and made silly narrative that DA is sabotaging the organisation if he isnt taking the best value. I tried to make you understand that face value and type of value are two different things, and told you in multiple posts that my main issue was always in the type of return.

The problem with this “instead of” argument is that it assumes we had optionality.

Then you went on to argue that there is "no way we rejected better offers":

This idea that the Danny/ Z had superior trades that they rejected is very strange.

You think Danny rejected better offers from better teams.

And then you went into sarcasm...

Okay, I give in. Danny desperately wanted 2024 late firsts and early seconds and he spurned numerous other better offers

... only to come out a hot second later suddenly admitting that they did prefer 2024 picks:

No doubt. It just seems to me that they got them with some sensible deals.

I on the other hand have never been nothing but consistent with my claim that we wanted 2024 picks and that was my gripe. Its the main point I make throughout our conversation. These 3 and the 2 below are from 5 separate posts, so over half of what I posted.

The far superior logic is they preferred 2024 picks and valued them higher than their face value.

It was a choice to get only 2024 picks and expirings.

i merely pointed out the fact that they prioritized 2024 picks instead of players or future picks.

I even tried to desperately make you say if we prefer/target/favor/prioritize 2024 picks... and you wouldnt. Until you did in your response to Cy.

So which one is it? Have the guts to commit to a take:
Did our FO target/favor 2024 picks or get two of those by coincidence?

But stop diverting attention away from it and answer this question finally:

Did we get the best/only deals or did we prioritize 2024 picks?

 

[silesian]

Point out where I argued that we didn’t want 2024 picks. Good luck, lol.

I’m not going to re litigate because it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse after your argument has been dismantled.

I even tried to desperately make you say if we prefer/target/favor/prioritize 2024 picks... and you wouldnt. Until you did in your response to Cy.

So from my agreement that we "want" 2024 picks, you logically conclude that we "prefer/ target/ favor/ prioritize" 2024 picks.


Similarly, let's say I want a chocolate bar. From this you would obviously conclude that I prefer chocolate bars to ice cream. And I would give up a quart of ice cream to get a bite of chocolate.

Do they teach logic in Finland?

This is as productive as talking to a piece of belly button lint.

 

[HermanG]

So from my agreement that we "want" 2024 picks, you logically conclude that we "prefer/ target/ favor/ prioritize" 2024 picks.

Ehh... yes? I mean..... are you setious here?

Similarly, let's say I want a chocolate bar. From this you would obviously conclude that I prefer chocolate bars to ice cream. And I would give up a quart of ice cream to get a bite of chocolate.

And again you backtrack to the "best value" assumption and try to bloat the difference.

Do they teach logic in Finland?

This is as productive as talking to a piece of belly button lint.

Those types of derogatory comments only make you look worse.

 

[Spaniard]

4 pages and counting? Your poor life partners

 

[silesian]

4 pages and counting? Your poor life partners

Fair point. When you get to the point where one party insists that "want" equals "prefer" we are debating irrefutable facts about language and it is time to move on. Thanks for the prompt, my life partner is calling, ;-)