jazzVA
Well-Known Member
Why’s that? Seems an odd hill to die on.
Lakers-Jazz Trade
- Thread starter Jazz Fusion
- Start date
framer
Well-Known Member
I mean I think there is a non zero chance that Westbrook would show up to training camp if traded. He'd have to agree to a buyout. People have went broke predicting what Westbrook is thinking. I don't think it is likely he plays for us, but with him, you never know. . .
Jazz could waive him outright without a buyout. He would have no choice. But if Jazz want to recoup some of his salary, yes he'd need a buyout.
This is 100% happening tomorrow.
Bogey/Conley/Beasley for Westbrook/Nunn if they are willing to add onto their luxury tax payment this year.
Bogey/Conley/NAW or Bogey/Conley/Vanderbilt if they don’t want to add onto their luxury tax payment this year.
Bogey/Beasley/Clarkson for Westbrook is the most ideal fit for them I think because Bogey is expiring, Beasley is non-guaranteed next year and I’d be surprised if Clarkson didn’t opt out next year with his player option to get more money. You could add a Vanderbilt/Nunn swap if they insisted on it.
Conley’s deal is fully guaranteed 48 hours after the 2023 draft so that hurts them if they wanted to use him in a sign-and-trade or guarantee him if they missed out on signing someone with their cap space.
I just don't think Conley is in the deal. Just problematic positionally and contractually.
They don't get Vanderbilt and whatever other sweeteners without the 2nd pick (or the swap/s). He's important for them as he's the dude they can actually keep moving forward. This is also why I've been tinkering with a trade to send another rookie-scale/RFA guy to them because they're gonna need NBA players next year too.
Disagree on both parts actually. Conley is EXACTLY what they need. Part of their problem is they don’t have a secondary ball handler besides LeBron. Conley shoots lights out as well and would get a ton of open looks playing with LeBron. Contractually worst comes to worst they waive and stretch him for 4.77M a year for three years. That is not crippling. It is very low risk and extremely high reward.
They can take Vanderbilt and whoever else to make the deal work even if we only get one pick. I think we end up getting both but those picks are so valuable it’s not worth letting one go because of Vanderbilt.
If its only one pick give them Bogey, Conley, and Gay. The other should be kept for other value. Bogey has pretty positive trade value and I still think Conley is at least positive. Meanwhile Westbrook is a huge negative right now. Now if they are giving up two unprotected picks we can start to give up more to them. Honestly the first trade makes them a lot better this year and gives them some options next year. If we are giving up a bunch of guys that is pretty much their only path to a championship this year and they need to pay a decent amount of future assets for that.
The way Tony's talking on Twitter makes me think that it could indeed be Conley, Bogey, Gay that are the ones the Jazz would want to move for Westbrook's contract.
I think that's worth more than one unprotected. But two? Idk.
Tony hasn't seemed to imply anything one way or the other about Beasley. Maybe because he's not yet eligible for an aggregated trade? (Though he seems to think the Jazz intend to hold onto Vanderbilt.)
Guess it will be interesting to find out if anything ever materializes.
Yeah, I don't know. Same thing with the Pacers deal though. Maybe that's not as important to them as some of the signals they seem to be sending would suggest? Or maybe they're simply not all that interested in Beasley (or Jazz would rather keep Beasley)?
If a deal doesn't end up happening, I'd want to know where the major sticking point was (though perhaps we'll never know).
Here's an idea. It's called the TPE magic sweetener. If there is any player that the Jazz can obtain with the TPE and then send to Lakers after waiting a month (or a day) then offer to include that if it helps the Lakers to send both picks. Or just trade the TPE by itself (you have two of them).
Clarkson has really taken to Utah. He wants to be here and I think the jazz need as many of those guys as they can get
I would make Clarkson a priority based on playing style, but your point is well taken.
Curious if you know whether Pacers are still actively engaged with Lakers at this point? I haven't gotten the sense that they're as motivated as the Jazz, but it's hard to really know what Indy wants at this point.
(And thanks for your recent late-night check-ins to Jazzfanz. It's always nice to hear from you.)
I would be okay with trading those three for one draft pick if its more than a couple seasons away. I think Gay is a negative contract for us, but I still think he has a little value with other teams. We could probably get a pick swap or a couple seconds, but those for our current team are pretty low value.
I don't see us getting anything of for Gay, but maybe he can be of some use for salary matching. In any case, I don't see any reason to spend assets on getting rid of him.
For Westbrook, my hope is Bogey, Beasley, Conley for WB + Nunn. I irrationally hope we keep Clarkson, but I wouldn't let him be the one blocking the deal. Hopefully Vanderbilt isn't part of it, but if he is, it's definitely for two unprotected.
In (somewhat) unrelated news, I did notice that if we manage to not convey the pick to OKC in '24 and '25, the '26 swap with OKC becomes pretty worthless. If our own pick is 9-30, it goes to OKC, if it's 1-8 we keep it, but it's not very likely we can swap it for something better.
I think we should just aim to be good/solid by 23-24, tbh, at least in 24-25, and preferably send OKC a pick in the late teens or 20s.
For Westbrook, my hope is Bogey, Beasley, Conley for WB + Nunn. I irrationally hope we keep Clarkson, but I wouldn't let him be the one blocking the deal. Hopefully Vanderbilt isn't part of it, but if he is, it's definitely for two unprotected.
In (somewhat) unrelated news, I did notice that if we manage to not convey the pick to OKC in '24 and '25, the '26 swap with OKC becomes pretty worthless. If our own pick is 9-30, it goes to OKC, if it's 1-8 we keep it, but it's not very likely we can swap it for something better.
I think we should just aim to be good/solid by 23-24, tbh, at least in 24-25, and preferably send OKC a pick in the late teens or 20s.
Westbrook is not a huge negative.
Y'all got to stop trying to BS yourselves into acting like Utah has great **** to trade the Lakers. We don't.
Bogey/Conley/Gay isn't even worth an unprotected 2027 pick. It would have some protections on it, at least top 5. (Plus wouldn't this increase the Lakers LT payment in a major way?)
Westbrook has HUGE value. He's a 44 million expiring. Trading for Westbrook in that deal would save Utah money in the long run. The trade also helps Utah tank in a major way. Utah can't expect to get off two bad contracts while only giving up a 35 year old on an expiring deal and getting a great unprotected future pick.
Even if Utah got back no picks in the deal it would be a positive value trade for Utah. Plus we need to execute some sort of trade where we take back less players than we send out due to have too many players currently.
The math you have to do is you can probably trade Bogey to a contender for a projected late first. But where does that leave you with Conley? Gay? Is getting off those contracts that important to Utah?
Last edited:
I think Beasley could have a really solid bounce back year and drive his value up much higher. I would strongly prefer to keep him, especially over someone like Clarkson for that reason. Worst case he sucks and we dont bring him back on a team option. Of course if we get something decent offered for him let him go. If he gets back to a 20ish ppg guy on decent percentages at 26 years old he is worth something decent. I would take that gamble over him as a throw in or giving up a 30 year old Clarkson who isnt going to improve his value most likely.