What's new
By:

Lowry anybody?

DownUnder said:
No thanks, would much rather target someone like Cory Joseph
Click to expand...
Why? The Jazz don't need any more depth, they need better top-end talent.

Lowry's fire would fit very well on the Jazz. Prior to this season, he'd never attempted more than 13.6 field goals per 36; less than Favors, Kanter, Burke and Hayward from this year's Jazz team. I don't think chucking would be a big concern, especially since he's been playing for a coach who only seems to be able to draw up perimeter isos the last couple seasons. Not sure the deal in the OP is all that great, but if you can get Lowry without giving up too much, it's worth giving it a try. His contract is very tradeable.
 
stitches said:
The fit is questionable indeed(mainly about what we are trying to do defensively), but the value I think is very fair to say the least... when I saw it I actually thought, "no way they are doing this trade"... I think the only reason they would do it is if they decide to blow it up. I think you do not realize what a top 10 PG(and he is one for sure) can do for us. I'm confident Quin can use him and fit him into the system just fine.
Click to expand...
a top 10 PG would take the ball out of our best playmakers hands. Don't get me wrong I actually like Lowry. I wanted him a few years ago. I just don't like the fit now and I don't like that price. It seems to high. If it can be done for just Lowry and not losing Booker I'd probably have a different opinion. But because of the cost I don't like it.
 
Wait just a second... Our two biggest needs are better point guard play and a stretch big. We get both on reasonable salaries in one trade without mortgaging the future and we aren't in. This is silly.

Look at the players who have been selected at 12 historically... It is likely that Patterson is better than whoever we would select at the 12. I'd like to move up the draft board as well but we have to have a trade partner to do that. I am not sure our assets line up well with any of the 6-9 teams. Piling on an extra pick doesn't always get the job done.

Exum can still develop... The ideas of bringing in a vet and developing Exum aren't mutually exclusive. If Exum develops faster than expected we can still trade Lowry.
 
Huge upgrade, but like Ty Lawson, he wouldn't fit our defensive switching strategy (he is 6'1" at best).
I like George Hill better for our team.
 
I'm not a huge Lowry fan but if all we have to give up is trey and picks then hell yes I do that trade
 
KD's Framily said:
I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's a bit of a stretch to believe those assets we're giving up would turn out to be as good as Lowry/Patterson, and Lowry's contract will have amazing trade value in both '16-17 and '17-18.

Not doing it for the sake of developing Exum is just stupid as hell. If he pans out, we can always trade Lowry, but let's at least wait until Exum becomes better than God-awful before turning down amazing trades for the sake of giving Exum more minutes.
Click to expand...

No

GVC said:
Why? The Jazz don't need any more depth, they need better top-end talent.

Lowry's fire would fit very well on the Jazz. Prior to this season, he'd never attempted more than 13.6 field goals per 36; less than Favors, Kanter, Burke and Hayward from this year's Jazz team. I don't think chucking would be a big concern, especially since he's been playing for a coach who only seems to be able to draw up perimeter isos the last couple seasons. Not sure the deal in the OP is all that great, but if you can get Lowry without giving up too much, it's worth giving it a try. His contract is very tradeable.
Click to expand...

No


Lowry is a short term fix at best. You have to consider the future in trades, especially when you have a young team. Lowry isn't getting ant better, he's knocking on 30's door, he's injury prone, and he's not playing all that good in the playoffs this year.

He doesn't fit in with where this team is going. In 3 years from now, where will this team be? Probably not as good as position as we would be had we not done the trade. He's not bringing us a championship, so it's not worth it. And it could very well turn into an untradable contract really quick.

You don't give up assets to make a small jump forward for a very short period of time, and take on all sorts of risk. It's a bad idea on so many levels.

Pros: We might win a few more games for a short period of time

Cons: Lowry progressively gets worse, we can't make a free agent move for a few years. We lose Booker. We lose all the assets listed. Lowry possibly brings negative energy and bad chemistry. We possibly lose Exum because he demands a trade. Lowry possibly gets injured making it a huge effing waste. We lose out on what could have been had we not made the trade. Maybe that 12th pick turned into a star.
 
Last edited:
It's a good thing DL isn't dumb and won't make no stupid *** trade like this anways. He's no Billy King.
 
Hack said:
Lowry is a short term fix at best. You have to consider the future in trades, especially when you have a young team. Lowry isn't getting ant better, he's knocking on 30's door, he's injury prone, and he's not playing all that good in the playoffs this year.

He doesn't fit in with where this team is going. In 3 years from now, where will this team be? Probably not as good as position as we would be had we not done the trade. He's not bringing us a championship, so it's not worth it. And it could very well turn into an untradable contract.rcontract really quick.

You don't give up a assets to make a small jump forward for a very short period of time, and take on all sorts of risk. It's a bad idea on so many levels.

Pros: We might win a few more games for a short period of time

Cons: Lowry progressively gets worse, we can't make a free agent move for a few years. We lose Booker. We lose all the assets listed. Lowry possibly brings negative energy and bad chemistry. We possibly lose Exum because he demands a trade. Lowry possibly gets injured making it a huge effing waste. We lose out on what could have been had we not made the trade. Maybe that 12th pick turned into a star.
Click to expand...
1. Any veteran upgrade would be for a limited amount of time, take minutes away from another (young) player, and eat into potential future cap space. I agree that Lowry doesn't perfectly fit with the age and trajectory of the current roster, but with the current length of NBA contracts, the roster will likely look a lot different in three years (when Lowry expires) regardless. I don't think anyone disagrees that adding a young (potential) star would be better, but a package featuring a collection of mediocre assets isn't going to get you there (the Harden trade is an incredible exception).

2. 3 years at $12mil for an above average starting PG will not turn into an untradeable contract. At worst, it can be dumped for cap relief.

3. Lowry is a killer. His mentality is perfect for the current Jazz team. I don't see his attitude becoming a problem unless Quin and the young guys turn into complacent losers.


FWIW, I'm not sure I give up everything suggested in the OP (which is what I said in my post). I'd definitely swap Burke plus the OKC or GS pick for Lowry, for example.
 
Last edited:
GVC said:
FWIW, I'm not sure I give up everything suggested in the OP (which is what I said in my post). I'd definitely swap Burke plus the OKC or GS pick for Lowry, for example.
Click to expand...

I don't know why Toronto would do it. If they're rebuilding, surely they would want a PG with better potential than Trey freaking Burke! And both GS and OKC's picks are mid-to-late 1st round picks. Why would they trade their, arguably, best asset, for a bunch of mediocre assets that won't help them all that much in the long term. I honestly don't think Burke + GS pick + OKC pick would get it done. As much I'd love Lowry, Toronto would probably expect a good player or a lottery pick in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top