Will The Jazz Make Any Significant Trades?

[fishonjazz]

I can just see posters saying "we shouldn't trade for Jokic because his teams never go far in the playoffs and he sucks on defense" and "I dont want the jazz to get giannis cause he can shoot and you cant win chip with your best player not being able to shoot" if those trades were suggested a few years ago. Along with "it would cost too much and we have Gobert and spida and we just had the best record in the league. It would decimate our team to acquire them" (this probably would have been lol cause I was a cake bakin son of a bitch)

 

[NUMBERICA]

What is with this MVP-obsession? Embiid is a great player, but there are quite a few players I'd rather trade for than him.

Lol? Besides that there have been like 30 of them ever? Yeah, nothing I guess. It’s like winning an MTV movie award, you’re right.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I can just see posters saying "we shouldn't trade for Jokic because his teams never go far in the playoffs and he sucks on defense" and "I dont want the jazz to get giannis cause he can shoot and you cant win chip with your best player not being able to shoot" if those trades were suggested a few years ago. Along with "it would cost too much and we have Gobert and spida and we just had the best record in the league. It would decimate our team to acquire them" (this probably would have been lol cause I was a cake bakin son of a bitch)

Sir it's the cost to get them. If you have to spend all your assets to get a MVP you're just putting that player in a worse position than they were already in.

How many MVP trades have there ever been that led to a championship? The cost is just too much unless your team is perfectly stacked to where you can trade a lot and still have a lot left over.

 

[JazzFever]

Sir it's the cost to get them. If you have to spend all your assets to get a MVP you're just putting that player in a worse position than they were already in.

How many MVP trades have there ever been that led to a championship? The cost is just too much unless your team is perfectly stacked to where you can trade a lot and still have a lot left over.

Which is why the current setup for Utah is basically perfect- they have a lot of assets and if someone like Luka becomes available, we and maybe OKC are the only ones positioned to give Dallas a bag and still have enough left to make a championship run. And if a superstar doesn't become available we can just continue to build w/the assets we have. Win/win.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sir it's the cost to get them. If you have to spend all your assets to get a MVP you're just putting that player in a worse position than they were already in.

How many MVP trades have there ever been that led to a championship? The cost is just too much unless your team is perfectly stacked to where you can trade a lot and still have a lot left over.

Ya the cost is a good reason to not want to make the trade. If its too high. Reasons like high usage or he hasn't won a chip yet or kessler is so good though or something are not good reasons imo.

 

[David Stern]

regarding high usage. Its a pet peeve of mine seeing people complain about guys being high usage when they are superstars. You WANT your superstar to be high usage lol. Imagine bulls fans being like "jordan is a ball hog. We need to change his game" or Jokic, or lebron, or wade, or kobe, or steph, etc etc etc etc. high usage for a superstar is almost never a negative (im sure there are rare exceptions).

I agree with you, I should clarify my original statement: I’m concerned that he’s going to be very injury prone the next few years because of his history and his heavy minutes/responsibility on both sides of the court. His talent and having the usage he does isn’t something we should be concerned about

 

[Fosto]

What the ****? Lol no way and if that was the price we’d obviously pass.

One the appeals of adding Kessler would mean we attach less picks due to how valuable he is.

Might still be worth it, as we don't know if any of the new guys will pan out. I would want to at least keep Hendricks, but I'd be okay with the rest.

 

[Fosto]

Sir it's the cost to get them. If you have to spend all your assets to get a MVP you're just putting that player in a worse position than they were already in.

How many MVP trades have there ever been that led to a championship? The cost is just too much unless your team is perfectly stacked to where you can trade a lot and still have a lot left over.

That wouldn't be the case if most of those assets are picks.

 

[Fosto]

How many MVP trades have there ever been that led to a championship? The cost is just too much unless your team is perfectly stacked to where you can trade a lot and still have a lot left over.

Often. Just in the past decade, more than half of Championships were due to an MVP-level trade/signing. Durant to GSW, Lebron to Miiami, then Cleveland, then LA. Kawhi To Toronto.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Often. Just in the past decade, more than half of Championships were due to an MVP-level trade/signing. Durant to GSW, Lebron to Miiami, then Cleveland, then LA. Kawhi To Toronto.

Brother a trade and signing are two entirely different things.

Kawhi has not won a MVP.

 

[Fosto]

Brother a trade and signing are two entirely different things.

Kawhi has not won a MVP.

Yeah, but if the Jazz simply give up future FRPs + Kessler and rookies who never played for the Jazz, then that basically has the effect of a signing. The core of the team is still all there. I know Kawhi hasn't won MVP, that's why I said MVP-level.