Lakers-Jazz Trade

[Ron Mexico]

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.

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.

Westbrook is not a positive salary even as an expiring, unless you take bad contracts back which they really dont want. Saving money for the Jazz is not that big of deal for us. I dont think Conley is a bad contract, I agree gay is. I would start with all three and then go back to just Conley and Bogey if they dont want Gay.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Westbrook is not a positive salary even as an expiring, unless you take bad contracts back which they really dont want. Saving money for the Jazz is not that big of deal for us. I dont think Conley is a bad contract, I agree gay is. I would start with all three and then go back to just Conley and Bogey if they dont want Gay.

I think Conley is still good, but the issue is he is overpaid at a position no one really needs help at and he's coming off a horrendous playoff series. He is currently viewed as a bad contract by the NBA.

Gay can't be included if you care about getting the pick unprotected. Conley probably can't be either. It would have to be Beasley/Vanderbilt.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I think Conley is still good, but the issue is he is overpaid at a position no one really needs help at and he's coming off a horrendous playoff series. He is currently viewed as a bad contract by the NBA.

Gay can't be included if you care about getting the pick unprotected. Conley probably can't be either. It would have to be Beasley/Vanderbilt.

I dont agree with that but, I get the sentiment. It might be true though, its really hard to gauge. If you dont include Conley or Gay then it has to be more than Beasley or Vandy for the salaries to work. I guess maybe Clarkson, which I dont think has a ton of trade value, but not negative and I dont see why we would want to keep him.

 

[idiot]

(Plus wouldn't this increase the Lakers LT payment in a major way?)

It's +1.4 million for them before luxury tax. Do you consider this major? Replacing Gay with NAW would put the money almost even. Or Vanderbilt would have more money coming to Jazz. I don't think the issue with this trade proposal would be the money.

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.

actually 47 million. I don't think our books are so bad that we are desperate to flip for Westbrook. We can drop approximately 47 million on our own next year if we want (Bogey, NAW, Beasley, 8 million of Conley). Obviously putting Conley or Gay in the trade would allow us to drop even more, but I don't think it's that pressing for us to do that.

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.

Can't agree here. It costs us nothing to waive guaranteed contracts. Lots of teams end up doing this. Raptors have seemed to make this an intentional strategy every year. I do agree that it's better to take back fewer players if we can, but it's not that big of a deal.

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?

Yes this is the math. I suspect that they'd prefer to get off Conley and Gay sooner rather than later. But not at the price of taking on Westbrook's contract for nothing, or very little.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

It's +1.4 million for them before luxury tax. Do you consider this major? Replacing Gay with NAW would put the money almost even. Or Vanderbilt would have more money coming to Jazz. I don't think the issue with this trade proposal would be the money.


actually 47 million. I don't think our books are so bad that we are desperate to flip for Westbrook. We can drop approximately 47 million on our own next year if we want (Bogey, NAW, Beasley, 8 million of Conley). Obviously putting Conley or Gay in the trade would allow us to drop even more, but I don't think it's that pressing for us to do that.


Can't agree here. It costs us nothing to waive guaranteed contracts. Lots of teams end up doing this. Raptors have seemed to make this an intentional strategy every year. I do agree that it's better to take back fewer players if we can, but it's not that big of a deal.


Yes this is the math. I suspect that they'd prefer to get off Conley and Gay sooner rather than later. But not at the price of taking on Westbrook's contract for nothing, or very little.

It's more pressing than you realize. I think you, and many others, are under the impression Utah is long term tanking. They aren't. I think they are going to be aggressive signing long term contracts next free agency

 

[idiot]

It's more pressing than you realize. I think you, and many others, are under the impression Utah is long term tanking. They aren't. I think they are going to be aggressive signing long term contracts next free agency

You're mistaking me for others when you say I'm thinking that the long-term tank has to be the plan. But I don't think the plan includes long-term free agents right away. Maybe trades, though. We'll see, I guess.

 

[hgb]

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?

I'm not sure how badly the Lakers want to get off the Westbrook contract, but if he has great value, how come they haven't traded him for assets yet? I don't see them getting off that contract without paying for it.

Also, there is _no_way_ the Jazz make any trade with the Lakers if they don't get picks. Bogey will be pretty easy to trade while getting something back, Jazz are probably in no hurry to get out of Gay's contract. I guess they'd like to move Conley, but they won't pay to do so I would think.

 

[FrenchJazzFa]

Tomorrow is the day. and Training camp is 2 weeks ahead so things will move pretty soon. Lakers have to win this year or next, after that Lebron and AD era will be done. Getting Bogey abd Conley wil help them a lot. Anc cherry on the cake if they can get Clarkson too.
What we will do will show if we are going for one year tank and try to bounce fast or if we go for few years of tanking. Wait and see.

 

[whatthe]

Clarkson took a lot of his in the last couple seconds of the play clock to rescue teammates. He is a better shooter than his percentage. I don't understand why they are not clamoring for him. It must be the cap issue.

 

[sip]

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

We better hope that isn't their thinking. If the goal is to build his trade value then I'm fine with that but he isn't a long term piece and I'd prefer to keep his ball hogging playing style away from the youngsters.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I just think Bogey is crazy underrated. He is 100% worth a good first on his own. Westbrook’s contract has value… but only if you are dumping ****** contracts… the sheer size eliminates many teams from the bidding just because most teams will be waiving him and he takes up like 40% of the cap… so you aren’t likely trying to be competitive.

Bogey and Beasley plus other expiring money is absolutely worth 1+ firsts from LA. Add in Vando and you should get both. If it’s JC, Bogey, Beasley… that is worth a pick and a swap imo… Bogey and Conley is worth 1 pick imo. Bogey is a top 30 scorer by volume in the league and is crazy efficient for a perimeter player. Turner is more impactful in a vacuum but he plays about 40-50% less games than Bogey. Mike was great in the regular season and I think we can flip him later if he’s viewed as negative. I’d consider him neutral or damn close to it.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

We better hope that isn't their thinking. If the goal is to build his trade value then I'm fine with that but he isn't a long term piece and I'd prefer to keep his ball hogging playing style away from the youngsters.

My biggest worry with JC is it’s a clunky fit with Sexton. We are far enough away from winning anything that fit shouldn’t be a huge issue. I’m not sure a developing team wants that many ball stoppers.

 

[Elizah Huge]

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?

I think you should sit this one out buddy. Remember when you told us Donovan wasn’t going to get traded this year?

 

[NUMBERICA]

FWIW, I searched “Jazz Lakers” on twitter and it was mostly Laker fans pumped about sending both picks for different packages of the Jazz (all of them with Bogey, most of them with Vando, more with Beasley than with Clarkson, and some with Conley).

 

[Elizah Huge]

Miami or Phoenix would give us an unprotected 1st for Bogey in a millisecond. He’s one of the most efficient scorers and one of the best shooters in the league. Any contender would love to have him he’s the perfect piece to put you over the top.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Also, JazzNotes saying this with TJ backing it up is practically a Woj bomb.

I think these negotiations are fundamentally different (easier) than with the Knicks because both teams have clear limits in terms of what they can offer. If both give everything they can then it just gets done.

 

[sip]

My biggest worry with JC is it’s a clunky fit with Sexton. We are far enough away from winning anything that fit shouldn’t be a huge issue. I’m not sure a developing team wants that many ball stoppers.

He is a tough fit with most players because of his ball dominance. I would much rather tank and give experience to the youngsters dominating the ball rather than watching Clarkson do it.

 

[Elizah Huge]

If Clarkson isn’t included in the deal I could see Memphis wanting him. They have Danny Green who is out for the entire year and is an expiring contract.

Clarkson for Green works straight up salary wise and they would add a 1st.

I know Tony is saying he doesn’t think we’d move him but I have a hard time seeing Ainge passing this deal up if it was on the table.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I’m also fairly certain Clarkson isn’t in the Lakers deal because Tony said he knows who’s being discussed but isn’t in a position to share. He did go out of his way to mention he doesn’t see Clarkson getting moved so that to me basically means he’s not in the deal.

I’m thinking it’s Bogey/Conley/Beasley for Westbrook/Nunn.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I’m also fairly certain Clarkson isn’t in the Lakers deal because Tony said he knows who’s being discussed but isn’t in a position to share. He did go out of his way to mention he doesn’t see Clarkson getting moved so that to me basically means he’s not in the deal.

I’m thinking it’s Bogey/Conley/Beasley for Westbrook/Nunn.

So it was really Bogey/Conley/Beasley/Bev for Russ/Nunn/THT... we end up with at least one unprotected first... maybe a swap or some seconds on top.

I know Tony is clued in but nothing Ainge or JZ could do would surprise me... so if they threw in Vando and JC instead of Mike and end up getting both firsts I wouldn't be shocked.