fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
I think this Gobert or Mitchell argument is kind of funny because we already know who the franchise has chosen. This is not a debate they are having in the front office, and it's not a debate the rest of the league would be having. One of these players is a lot more valuable than the other, and it's just a fact. It's Mitchell and it's not close. Building around a 30 year old Rudy Gobert in the modern nba is the most insane thing I've ever heard. It's an idea only a delusional fan could have. I don't know how you could watch the Jazz playoff performance in the last three years and come to the conclusion that Gobert is your most valuable piece. Year after year the league has proven that good teams can neutralize "The Gobert Effect" when they need to. And if you trade Mitchell you're not getting a Mitchell-quality star back--star for star trades don't happen--and if you don't have a Mitchell quality star you might as well trade Gobert and start the rebuild, because you can't win even a first round playoff series if Gobert is you're best player.
These are the pertinent questions Ainge and the front office are asking themselves: do you keep Gobert and Mitchell together, or do you trade Gobert? Or do we think Mitchell himself isn't good enough to be a franchise player and should we trade them both?" I really doubt there's anyone in that entire front office saying, "Let's trade Mitchell and do a quick rebuild around a 30 year old defensive-only center who can't even score on Luka Doncic in the post."
These are the pertinent questions Ainge and the front office are asking themselves: do you keep Gobert and Mitchell together, or do you trade Gobert? Or do we think Mitchell himself isn't good enough to be a franchise player and should we trade them both?" I really doubt there's anyone in that entire front office saying, "Let's trade Mitchell and do a quick rebuild around a 30 year old defensive-only center who can't even score on Luka Doncic in the post."
