Looking ahead to 2025-2026

[SoberasHotRod]

This should be a no brainer. I'm kinda shocked how #2 and #3 got votes. I bet my arguments have already been stated, but since I missed few days worth of posts I'm not gonna go through every thread 100%.

#2 is aboslutely terrible as an option as after you get "the guy", you need to start building up, not tearing things further down. First off, if you get Flagg and trade Lauri you are trading away a guy who is the type of guy you are then looking to acquire 2 years later and may not be able to. It would also be better to have the rest of the team in place BEFORE you get the guy, so that others being less developed than him arent dragging him down. The time to "wait for maybe getting more kids who may or may not turn into players" kinda ends the exact moment you draft HIM.

#2 is sensible ONLY if you think that Flagg isnt the guy, and you are looking to get the guy next year (Good luck with that two #1 picks in a row thing!).

Also #3 AKA getting yourself in contract/tax trouble way before that guy develops/peaks is also definitely not a good idea.

#2 makes sense if you think that Flagg's peak timeline won't matchup with Lauri's peak timeline, and you want to get assets from Lauri that will help you surround Flagg with talent more in line with when you expect him to be at his peak.

#3 makes sense if you are impatient and are sick of the Jazz losing games

#1 is a huge risk as you might be setting yourself up to be giving up pick 9-14 to OKC vs not having to give them anything.

(I voted for #1 BTW, but I don't think it's a no-brainer)

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I am certain we are dying for a shot at AJ Dybantsa, but even if you guarantee yourself the worst record in the league, you end up with only a 14% chance at the #1 pick. Unless we can figure out how to tamper!

If we landed Flagg (I can dream...), I would personally lean towards building around Lauri + Flagg and pursuing a third top-tier player via our considerable war chest.

It's more than just Dybantsa in 2026, there is Boozer and Peterson as well. It's too early to know who is real and who is not, but as of today there are at least 3 guys worth tanking for next year.

 

[HermanG]

#2 makes sense if you think that Flagg's peak timeline won't matchup with Lauri's peak timeline, and you want to get assets from Lauri that will help you surround Flagg with talent more in line with when you expect him to be at his peak.

#3 makes sense if you are impatient and are sick of the Jazz losing games

#1 is a huge risk as you might be setting yourself up to be giving up pick 9-14 to OKC vs not having to give them anything.

(I voted for #1 BTW, but I don't think it's a no-brainer)

I dont like when people think they can predict future accurately. Bottom line is if you win the lottery and believe he is the guy then you MUST start thinking "build up".

Its not like the guy walks into the facility and the FO says "yeah 5 years from now he will be good enough to win" and then draws a timeline and analyzes who fits and who doesnt.

If Flagg is him he would benefit a lot from a guy like Lauri and would probably make Lauri look better as well. You dont just throw that card away without looking it.

Its a no brainer.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

I dont like when people think they can predict future accurately. Bottom line is if you win the lottery and believe he is the guy then you MUST start thinking "build up".

Its not like the guy walks into the facility and the FO says "yeah 5 years from now he will be good enough to win" and then draws a timeline and analyzes who fits and who doesnt.

If Flagg is him he would benefit a lot from a guy like Lauri and would probably make Lauri look better as well. You dont just throw that card away without looking it.

Its a no brainer.

OK, good point, I certainly would want Flagg to have Lauri.

The other part of option 2 is about maximizing your contention window, and minimizing the chance of losing an asset. If you think you can add a Lauri quality player or better in 2026, who is on a rookie contract, and not have to convey a pick to OKC, then it makes sense. It's also about minimizing the risk of Lauri's contract. If Lauri gets hurt or declines then that is a huge negative contract you might be dealing with. If you don't think it's realistic to compete within Lauri's contract then it makes sense to deal him.

 

[Tanktastic]

If Lauri gets hurt or declines then that is a huge negative contract you might be dealing with.

That's every major NBA contract.

If you think the team will ever be a contender with only players on rookie contracts and easy contracts to get out under from, you're sorely mistaken.

The team has to take the plunge at one point or another. Not taking it because of fear won't lead to anything good.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Just thinking about that pick we sent to OKC and reflecting on the unbelievable bungling the 2020 offseason, which is perhaps the worst in franchise history.

-trading back in the draft and the team that acquired the Jazz’s higher pick traded it again for a better return than the Jazz got for it, then
-DL overrides the whole front office to draft some big oaf who sucks at and doesn’t like basketball, despite already having one of the best (and most limited but most motivated) centers in the NBA, and despite
-Bane and McDaniels on the board (obviously way better prospects and fits without foresight), and
-already knowing they were going to sign Favors, then
-traded virtually every 2nd rounder for Cold Matthew and salary dumps, but
-didn’t know their numbers or did their math wrong and didn’t get under the LT after all of that
-fast forward a year and they cough up a pick with a perfectly-designed protection scheme by the Thunder, such that they have decent odds at landing a lottery pick unless the Jazz tank their asses off for three straight years

This is why you do everything you can to position your franchise to not have to trade your own picks. By the way, the Jazz should really try to see if they can just get the pick back. With how stacked the Western Conference somehow continues to be, they will probably cough up a late lotto pick if they try to win and build in earnest to the most loaded team in the NBA.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Just thinking about that pick we sent to OKC and reflecting on the absolutely unbelievable bunging the 2020 offseason, which is perhaps the worst in franchise history.

-trading back in the draft and the team that acquired the Jazz’s higher pick traded it again for a better return than the Jazz got for it, then
-DL overrides the whole front office to draft some big oaf who sucks at and doesn’t like basketball, despite already having one of the best (and most limited but most motivated) centers in the NBA, and despite
-Bane and McDaniels on the board (obviously way better prospects and fits without foresight), and
-already knowing they were going to sign Favors, then
-traded virtually every 2nd rounder for Cold Matthew and salary dumps, but
-didn’t know their numbers or did their math wrong and didn’t get under the LT after all of that
-fast forward a year and they cough up a pick with a perfectly-designed protection scheme by the Thunder, such that they have decent odds at landing a lottery pick unless the Jazz tank their asses off for three straight years

This is why you do everything you can to position your franchise not having to trade your own picks. By the way, w the Jazz should really try to see if they can just get the pick back. With how stacked the Western Conference somehow continues to be, they will probably cough up a late lotto pick if they try to win and build in earnest to the most loaded team in the NBA.

Not to debate your points, but I do think missing on McDaniels is a bit of a blessing in disguise given the contract he got in his 2nd term.

 

[HermanG]

OK, good point, I certainly would want Flagg to have Lauri.

The other part of option 2 is about maximizing your contention window, and minimizing the chance of losing an asset. If you think you can add a Lauri quality player or better in 2026, who is on a rookie contract, and not have to convey a pick to OKC, then it makes sense. It's also about minimizing the risk of Lauri's contract. If Lauri gets hurt or declines then that is a huge negative contract you might be dealing with. If you don't think it's realistic to compete within Lauri's contract then it makes sense to deal him.

I think #2 makes sense only if the GM has like X year plan which he follows religiously. DA doesnt seem to be that type and I think in general you need to be able to adapt any plan based on major events like winning the lottery.

 

[The Midnight]

Go get Boozer.

 

[KqWIN]

I really don’t think any of these paths are unviable. Let’s just say we had made the Lauri trade this summer and the same situation pops up - we win the lottery and have Flagg. I don’t think it’s a given that we must trade those assets immediately for a Lauri equivalent. I also don’t think that if you did decide to trade for a Lauri equivalent you cannot go any further and continue to try to add talent.

I get why people may have an attachment to Lauri and want to build with him….but if you don’t have that attachment it would make sense to stay the course. That’s not the only option, but it’s a valid way to think.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I do have a hard time believing Danny/Ryan will pass on a chance at getting AJ.

That, and that they would likely cough up a late lottery pick to OKC if they try in earnest to win games.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I do have a hard time believing Danny/Ryan will pass on a chance at getting AJ.

AJ, Cam Boozer, Darryn Peterson....all massive star prospects.