What's new
By:
Filters

Does it hurt or help the jazz to keep Jordan Clarkson?

Thee Idiotic Minivan K

Thee Idiotic Minivan K

Well-Known Member
I’m a fan of Clarkson, but I think the jazz need to trade him and it has nothing to do with the jazz’s ability to tank, and I’m firmly on the tank bandwagon. Lately over the past few weeks I’ve been thinking JC is stunting Markkanen’s growth as a player. This offense, make no bones about it runs through JC. I wish it would run through Markkanen more. I think it’s important for him to go through that. While Markkanen is putting up Star numbers, he really doesn’t have that Star mantle, and won’t till JC is off the team.

Thoughts?
 
I think lately JC has been deferring more.. I whined about this exact topic for the first 25 or so games.. but in December it started to change.

Now JC is a bit of a tunnel vision guy so whenever he has the ball it immediately reduces the value of others on that possession, but he also takes off some load from Lauri and allows him to save his energy a bit.

Right now... I would keep him. I think they can coexist and both be successful.
 
I don't know the answer but think it all boils down to the extension talks Danny is currently having with Klutch.

Personally I prefer my starting wings to play a bit more defense moreso than the instant offense guys we see on the Jazz. No doubt JC can get hot as hell and score buckets in a variety of ways. Even the all star level scoring guards such as Don, Lavine and Booker are sometimes hard to watch with their lack of effort on defense but that's just me.
 
Previous seasons of JC I wouldn't have wanted with this team, but this year with this roster and coach I think he's still been a good job at being the spark plug he was before, but some nice new wrinkles in his game.

So I think he's still a great fit with this team BUT ultimately with our timeline does it make a whole lot of sense to keep him around for another 3-4 years? Best case scenario somehow we are contending by that time and I'd imagine JC will get a pretty healthy next contract so it'll be the tail end of that deal and he'll be mid 30's and I think his game will fall off a cliff as he ages. I'd hate for us to be close to great, but a deal like that weighing us down.
 
All that matters ,is if this org is really interested in even entertaining the idea of paying him, anything close to what he can get on the open market. If they think his market will be the level that makes him locked in as a starter, I think they instead shop him, if they are not already. But , if they think his market is low, they are very likely to not trade him, and can just bring him off the bench as the season goes on, back to his 6th man role.I guess to let him pad stats for his new summer deal from someone else and if the offers are not there he will stay here on the cheap
 
Honestly even if you really like Clarkson and want to sign him to an extension I would still trade him. What you do though is tell him we are going to do this favor for you and send you to a contender this year so you can try to win a title but you can expect a phone call from us right when free agency begins about coming back. This way we get something no matter what but we still have the possibility of bringing him back if that is something that interests him. It is just important to not burn a bridge when the trade happens.
 
Repeating myself here but Ryan Smith wants JC in Utah for more than basketball reasons. It will take a lot in return for the Jazz to trade him and I dont think it will happen at the deadline because of how much Smith wants JC around. The asking price for him will be too high. We will keep him and try to sign him in the off season and it wont be a surprise if we overpay him to stick around. I am fine moving him if we get good value and happy to be wrong but I dont see it happening.
 
sip said:
Honestly even if you really like Clarkson and want to sign him to an extension I would still trade him. What you do though is tell him we are going to do this favor for you and send you to a contender this year so you can try to win a title but you can expect a phone call from us right when free agency begins about coming back. This way we get something no matter what but we still have the possibility of bringing him back if that is something that interests him. It is just important to not burn a bridge when the trade happens.
Click to expand...
Double dip. I like it.
 
It's interesting to contemplate if Lauri would thrive as the alpha. Some guys prefer to let somebody else take the focus and thrive in their own element. He strikes me as that type, but I could be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G996U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
vegas said:
It's interesting to contemplate if Lauri would thrive as the alpha. Some guys prefer to let somebody else take the focus and thrive in their own element. He strikes me as that type, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
If "alpha" means holding the ball a lot, breaking plays, dominating possessions and forcing shots, then Lauri isn't one and will never be one IMO. (These dudes are going extinct anyway as top dogs, the NBA game has changed. The description sounds more like a microwave scorer off the bench.)

But if "alpha" means that you play an efficient brand of basketball within the offense BUT can also carry the team in crunch time if need be, Markkanen has a chance to develop into that player IMO. He already has the first part down, now he just needs some additional weapons to unlock the second part - those moments when you need to bend the game into your will. IMO the most important factor is improving his ballhandling. To create scoring opportunities in crunch time, when ball movement often dies down, he needs to be better with the rock.
 
Clarkson is a great player as one of your main guys if you want to be a .500 team.

It's hard to argue he hurts Lauri since this is his best season ever. But Lauri needs a solid pick and roll guy to play with him, better defense, and shooting at pretty much every position to free things up. JC only adds shooting to that.

I am firmly in three trade him if we can get something good. For a meh return we should keep him for sure. No reason to trade him for a worse player or a late first only.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Clarkson is a great player as one of your main guys if you want to be a .500 team.

It's hard to argue he hurts Lauri since this is his best season ever. But Lauri needs a solid pick and roll guy to play with him, better defense, and shooting at pretty much every position to free things up. JC only adds shooting to that.

I am firmly in three trade him if we can get something good. For a meh return we should keep him for sure. No reason to trade him for a worse player or a late first only.
Click to expand...
Clarkson adds more than just shooting. He's become a good playmaker and he can get his shot off easily. That's important to pair next to Markkanen. He needs some kind of self creation balance next to him and I think Clarkson is developing that.

And Lauri has been "taking over" more. Clarkson is letting that happen too, he isn't in the way. Lauri can be THAT guy in stretches, but he isn't going to play like that every game all game. And he isn't going to be some high level playmaker for others when he's not doing that, he'll be a spacer/decoy.

Jazz also just have no other good scorers yet. After Clarkson it's Sexton or Beasley. Each are more flawed than Clarkson. Sexton more skilled/efficient, but Beasley is near elite at a valuable skillset. Just don't think we can afford to lose Clarkson.
 
Last edited:
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Clarkson adds more than just shooting. He's become a good playmaker and he can get his shot off easily. That's important to pair next to Markkanen. He needs some kind of self creation balance next to him and I think Clarkson is developing that.
Click to expand...
He is a good scorer inside. He definitely can create his own shot. He's not terribly efficient most of the time. He doesn't create much for others. He's also on the wrong side of 30 now and is pretty inconsistent. We've seen his ups and downs a lot here. Plus he doesn't play defense.

But again I only want to trade him if we get a good trade for him. He is really good as a scorer especially when the offense is stale.
 
I think a lot of people still believe passing is the holy grail of basketball and iso is the devil. The game has evolved we need balance.
 
Agent#00 said:
I think a lot of people still believe passing is the holy grail of basketball and iso is the devil. The game has evolved we need balance.
Click to expand...
Nah I don't think anyone thinks that, both are great. But we need more ability to create for others on this roster especially with Lauri. We really only have Conley setting people up much and he's pretty close to done. It's rough having most of our other main guards have blinders on and can't/don't play defense. We need more balance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top