Trade deadline discussion

[Handlogten's Heros]

Just got to accept that 2nd rounders are money savings chips for the Jazz, not things they want to use to draft players. If they want a player in the 2nd round, they will have to be buyers on draft day. Which means we will probably draft 10 Hughes/Oni/JWF/Brantleys before we get someone decent.

It would be nice if they'd use those to find role players they need instead of cleaning up mistakes they've made.

 

[gomretat]

I think the Jazz believe that 2nd rounders are easy to pick up when they need them even if they just pay cash.

 

[gomretat]

I like JZ. It’s fair… I wasn’t mad. He also seemed really reasonable when talking about NAW. I hope JZ sticks around.

I really hope JZ sticks around. I trust him a lot more than Ainge.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I get what Zanick is saying though.

It is very hard to upgrade this roster. The big difference makers werent affordable to Utah. The minor upgrades arent worth a 1st round pick for a guy who might play 20 mpg.

The biggest fail was not seeing the importance of off-loading Clarkson, but maybe that would be an asset costing move. At this point it would be selling low. Clarkson can probably player better than he is now, and he will be more tradeable as his contract comes closer to the expiration date.

I think the Jazz still like Clarkson for that one game out of five where he goes off. The difference now is that if he's getting killed on defense or throwing bricks, the Jazz can pull him and replace him with Forrest, NAW or House. The Jazz are less dependent on him to be the one-man bench mob that he was when he first got here.

Other than that, I agree. The Jazz need an athletic wing with size who is good enough to replace Royce as a starter and closer. Not easy to get.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Honest question - does that fact that by some accounts we could have traded the same two players and saved millions and millions and even gotten out of the repeater tax not mean anything? This seems obvious to me and I know many folks dont like Locke but listen to his description of what we did versus what we could have done. He has been advocating for weeks that get out of the repeater tax situation and instead we invested in an asset that is low efficiency but with some hope of future potential. Seems like a pretty significant investment to me and clearly not a money move. Locke even proposed that getting out the luxury tax this year was a basketball move because of future flexibility. What am I missing? From the time we signed Favs, resigned Conley, and now this move it is clear that the tax is not the issue with Smith.

Honest question... do you know the math? Because Locke didn't. Simply moving Joe into someones space wouldn't do it. We were like 15M into the tax... it would have required Joe and one of JC or Rudy Gay... so do you believe there was a team willing and able to take on that much salary? How many additional picks would that costs.

I heard Locke... he was talking like OKC would take Joe for no incentive.... that ain't how it works. We likely did not have enough incentive to give them to take Joe on. And again... wouldn't get us all the way under the tax... would still need to move a salary that is more than a minimum guy.

If you don't think we make financially motivated moves then I can't help you. Many of these folks are Jazz employees or guys that defend the org so they don't burn their connections. What incentive do they have to be critical or say these moves are not basketball moves.

Its fine... it was an okay long term move. There wasn't a move that I thought we could do. Unlike some I don't want to give away our future picks for mild upgrades. But if you think that a big part of the motivation for this deal isn't money motivated then you are ignoring the obvious.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Honest question... do you know the math? Because Locke didn't. Simply moving Joe into someones space wouldn't do it. We were like 15M into the tax... it would have required Joe and one of JC or Rudy Gay... so do you believe there was a team willing and able to take on that much salary? How many additional picks would that costs.

I heard Locke... he was talking like OKC would take Joe for no incentive.... that ain't how it works. We likely did not have enough incentive to give them to take Joe on. And again... wouldn't get us all the way under the tax... would still need to move a salary that is more than a minimum guy.

If you don't think we make financially motivated moves then I can't help you. Many of these folks are Jazz employees or guys that defend the org so they don't burn their connections. What incentive do they have to be critical or say these moves are not basketball moves.

Its fine... it was an okay long term move. There wasn't a move that I thought we could do. Unlike some I don't want to give away our future picks for mild upgrades. But if you think that a big part of the motivation for this deal isn't money motivated then you are ignoring the obvious.

Good post.

 

[Miggs]

I think the Jazz still like Clarkson for that one game out of five where he goes off. The difference now is that if he's getting killed on defense or throwing bricks, the Jazz can pull him and replace him with Forrest, NAW or House. The Jazz are less dependent on him to be the one-man bench mob that he was when he first got here.

Other than that, I agree. The Jazz need an athletic wing with size who is good enough to replace Royce as a starter and closer. Not easy to get.

Lol at Quin pulling him. Will never happen.

 

[Jingled]

Lol at Quin pulling him. Will never happen.

Yeah that's definitely not going to happen lol

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah that's definitely not going to happen lol

They’d have to get new hats if that happened.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I'm very interested to see how well NAW is able to get the ball to Gobert in pick-and-roll. He was actually pretty good at setting up lobs for Jaxson Hayes. If he can play well with Gobert, that will give him a path to more minutes. Otherwise, Clarkson pretty much sucks at getting Gobert involved.

 

[fishonjazz]

It would be nice if they'd use those to find role players they need instead of cleaning up mistakes they've made.

Use the 2nd rounders to find role players? Cant they just buy those if they see a guy they think can be a role player. Doesn't seem like 2nd round picks are super difficult to acquire

 

[infection]

Honest question - does that fact that by some accounts we could have traded the same two players and saved millions and millions and even gotten out of the repeater tax not mean anything? This seems obvious to me and I know many folks dont like Locke but listen to his description of what we did versus what we could have done. He has been advocating for weeks that get out of the repeater tax situation and instead we invested in an asset that is low efficiency but with some hope of future potential. Seems like a pretty significant investment to me and clearly not a money move. Locke even proposed that getting out the luxury tax this year was a basketball move because of future flexibility. What am I missing? From the time we signed Favs, resigned Conley, and now this move it is clear that the tax is not the issue with Smith.

As mentioned previously, dumping Hughes and Ingles for nothing still wouldn't have gotten us out of the tax. If I recall, the discussion here last year was about getting out of the tax because the repeater issue would be problematic. We ended up being a few hundred thousand above it and you had ardently argued that they didn't **** up the math. So they intentionally went over the tax by a smidge. But now we're saying that those would be a basketball move to get under the tax this year to avoid the repeater tax? You can't say that we had good purpose to be a few hundred thousand over the tax last year has some good, master scheme behind it and that now it's imperative to get under the tax and that it's a good move. Those two ideas are completely at odds with each other and can only arise if we're parroting back the daily spin, without any thought of having to look at any consistency between narratives.

I think the Jazz believe that 2nd rounders are easy to pick up when they need them even if they just pay cash.

What about as an asset? Not to say him specifically, but just as an example, the Pacers were asking for two second round picks for Justin Holiday. What happens when you've emptied the cupboards to clean up previous messes and you don't have anything to trade mid-season? Do you think other teams would take an IOU of "this is a draft pick I'll buy you on draft night" in a trade? Do you think we could have had more doors open to us in trade if we were armed with a first round pick and three second rounders? Because that's what we've dumped in the past 9 months to "make basketball moves."