Trade Rumors Involving the Jazz

[framer]

Why do we want them "eating" expirings? We should be coveting them more than most (unless they come with - surprise - more draft capital).

Because Clarkson and Beasley are good players on good contracts. I mean if Lebron opts out they are going to have cap space either way. Don't make the situation there attractive at all to sign someone good.

 

[idiot]

Because Clarkson and Beasley are good players on good contracts. I mean if Lebron opts out they are going to have cap space either way. Don't make the situation there attractive at all to sign someone good.

I think my motto in most circumstances would be to prioritize my own interests first (in this case, the Jazz getting rid of salary quickly) because you can't really control what the other guy is going to do. I don't really see Clarkson and Beasley (vs Beverley and Bogey, say) as key to the Lakers' record in 2027 and 2029.

 

[Ineptimusprime]

Lakers could add a few seconds and perhaps a swap, I guess, but literally can't add any more FRPs. They have no more available to give. But this is not the real issue.

Our players(') (salaries) are only useful to us when we trade them (assuming a tank). Otherwise, they're every bit as "bad" for us as Westbook's. But even this only starts to point to the real issue.

It doesn't matter whether we are doing the Lakers 2 big favors.

It only matters (to us) whether what the Lakers give us for those favors is better than what we could get for those players elsewhere. You're confident that we can do better than 2 Laker FRPs elsewhere for these three players (I'd welcome you providing a "for example" scenario). I'm less confident, and have hinted at why in my previous post, but will be happy if Ainge proves me wrong.

I think we are in agreement we should move off our veteran players.

I just think we can do better than 2 total FRPs for Beverley, Clarkson, and Beasley. You disagree. I guess we’ll see what happens. The proposed trade with the Lakers does achieve some objectives, it just doesn’t seem like enough draft compensation to me.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think we are in agreement we should move off our veteran players.

I just think we can do better than 2 total FRPs for Beverley, Clarkson, and Beasley. You disagree. I guess we’ll see what happens. The proposed trade with the Lakers does achieve some objectives, it just doesn’t seem like enough draft compensation to me.

And if the Jazz are able to pick up multiple 1sts AND 2nds with the extra cap space they’ll have in 2023? Cuz they’d save ~$30 million in cap space doing the aforementioned move.

 

[BENTLEY]

Those 27, 29 lakers picks are premium. Doubt they’d do 1-for-1. But 3-for-2? I think that might work. I prefer they take Conley + another two, but who knows?

 

[NUMBERICA]

Those 27, 29 lakers picks are premium. Doubt they’d do 1-for-1. But 3-for-2? I think that might work. I prefer they take Conley + another two, but who knows?

They can have whoever they want. We’ll have plenty of options.

 

[homeytennis]

What if the Jazz move virtually everyone? What is the salary floor they would have to meet?

 

[Elizah Huge]

What if the Jazz move virtually everyone? What is the salary floor they would have to meet?

111.3M

 

[Ineptimusprime]

And if the Jazz are able to pick up multiple 1sts AND 2nds with the extra cap space they’ll have in 2023? Cuz they’d save ~$30 million in cap space doing the aforementioned move.

Yes, I understand that expiring contracts have value to a tanking team, but Russell Westbrook isn’t the only expiring contract in the NBA next offseason.

Can they throw in some ‘23, ‘24, or ‘25 second rounders too?

I like the idea of getting as many darts to throw in next year’s draft as possible.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

Our players(') (salaries) are only useful to us when we trade them (assuming a tank). Otherwise, they're every bit as "bad" for us as Westbook's. But even this only starts to point to the real issue.

It doesn't matter whether we are doing the Lakers 2 big favors.

Those players aren't 'every bit as bad for us as Westbrook'. The Lakers have Lebron and AD. They have a window to compete that closes every day Lebron ages. They are 100% win now or reset. Westbrook is the biggest thing stopping them from progressing as when he is on the floor they statistically are worse in every way but they have to appease him because of his qualifications.

If we keep our players to the trade deadline or even through the end of the season then whoopdeedoo. We don't lose anything other than paying the guys their salaries. We have to pay someone. A guy like Conley can mentor Jared Butler. The others are fantastic pieces for competitors at the trade deadline.

No real urgency here on our behalf.

Regarding whether it matters if we are doing the Lakers 2 big Favors... IT DOES TO THEM. Which is why it will cost them.

 

[idiot]

Those players aren't 'every bit as bad for us as Westbrook'. The Lakers have Lebron and AD. They have a window to compete that closes every day Lebron ages. They are 100% win now or reset. Westbrook is the biggest thing stopping them from progressing as when he is on the floor they statistically are worse in every way but they have to appease him because of his qualifications.

If we keep our players to the trade deadline or even through the end of the season then whoopdeedoo. We don't lose anything other than paying the guys their salaries. We have to pay someone. A guy like Conley can mentor Jared Butler. The others are fantastic pieces for competitors at the trade deadline.

No real urgency here on our behalf.

Regarding whether it matters if we are doing the Lakers 2 big Favors... IT DOES TO THEM. Which is why it will cost them.

So let me get this straight. It would be worse (in a tanking situation) for the Jazz to get the 2027 and 2029 FRP from the Lakers (perhaps unprotected) and the financial flexibility that an expiring Westbook would bring to the 2023-24 season than to get something like (the very plausible alternative situations of):

- a 2nd rounder and an expiring for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar-sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
-an expected late 2023 first (perhaps about pick 27) and a contract expiring in 2024 for Clarkson

OR

- a late 2023 first plus $14 million expiring contract in 2025 for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
- no trade at all of Clarkson in 2022-23 (and then 2 second rounders for him in 2024 for 2025 expiring salary)

Is that your argument? And the reason is because we'd be helping the Lakers out too much by taking their two first rounders?

I'd get it if your argument is that we can get more for those three players than we can get from the Lakers (though I've indicated several times that I'm somewhat dubious about that argument). But my point is that it doesn't matter at all whether we are helping the Lakers out. I don't care what their situation is other than that their needs and our desires may align. What matters is that we help ourselves out as much as possible. Failing to deal with them if their offer is the best just because it helps them escape a sticky situation is GM malpractice.

PS, I do agree with you that there's no urgency. We should definitely shop around before doing something like this Laker idea. But it's an idea we have to keep in mind and weigh against what else the market is offering.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So let me get this straight. It would be worse (in a tanking situation) for the Jazz to get the 2027 and 2029 FRP from the Lakers (perhaps unprotected) and the financial flexibility that an expiring Westbook would bring to the 2023-24 season than to get something like (the very plausible alternative situations of):

- a 2nd rounder and an expiring for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar-sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
-an expected late 2023 first (perhaps about pick 27) and a contract expiring in 2024 for Clarkson

OR

- a late 2023 first plus $14 million expiring contract in 2025 for Beverley
- a 2nd rounder and similar sized contract expiring in 2024 for Beasley
- no trade at all of Clarkson in 2022-23 (and then 2 second rounders for him in 2024 for 2025 expiring salary)

Is that your argument? And the reason is because we'd be helping the Lakers out too much by taking their two first rounders?

I'd get it if your argument is that we can get more for those three players than we can get from the Lakers (though I've indicated several times that I'm somewhat dubious about that argument). But my point is that it doesn't matter at all whether we are helping the Lakers out. I don't care what their situation is other than that their needs and our desires may align. What matters is that we help ourselves out as much as possible. Failing to deal with them if their offer is the best just because it helps them escape a sticky situation is GM malpractice.

PS, I do agree with you that there's no urgency. We should definitely shop around before doing something like this Laker idea. But it's an idea we have to keep in mind and weigh against what else the market is offering.

I agree with all of this except I think there should be urgency. We’re obviously not the only team that might explore this as a possibility. We are not going to do better that those picks, I am planting my flag in that as comfortably as saying Udoka/Favors **** was catastrophic when it was all coming down the pipe.