IT For Gobert

[bondom34]

There's barely a three year age difference between the two.

He's hitting his age 24 season this year and the end of his rookie contract. Gobert will be paid twice what Thomas will make over the life of Thomas' current contract.

Like I said, I like Gobert a lot, but let's be real, the guy is Dikembe Mutombo, not Shaq. Both Thomas and Gobert are highly weighted towards one half of the court in their respective strengths.

Closer to 4 (actually IT just turned 27, Gobert is 23.3) years is a big difference.

23.3 on BBref means his birthday is in June, the decimal is the number of days, not a traditional decimal. The .305 is out of .365.

Ah, never noticed that, my bad. He's still quite a bit younger, in a league where a career is 12 years if its a good long one, 3 years is a quarter of your career.

[Texas Chuck]

And elite defense is more valuable than elite offense.

I actually don't think that is the case.

Yeah I think that's an oversimplification too. But let's take your Deke comment. If Gobert is really Deke 2.0 then he's worth way more than Thomas---a player I absolutely love and have for a long time. I have to eat some crow because I thought Jazz fans overhyped Gobert initially and I never thought he'd have this impact. But I get to pound my chest on IT because I was a strong supporter of his going back to his Kings days.

But Gobert absolutely has a lot more trade value and I would suggest on-court value as well. Thomas is actually in a near ideal setting as the only legit offensive option on the Celtics. So his value to the Celtics is very high as a result, but Gobert's game is far more portable to more teams.

[moocow007]

IT for Gobert,
a trade that would most likely never happen,
but interesting to reflect upon.

Why for the Jazz? They acquire a dominant, high-scoring PG, something they've desperately needed for awhile and Favors is
better suited to play the 5 than PF.

Why for the Celtics? The Cs acquire one of the best defensive centers in the NBA and can replace IT by selecting Dunn with the Nets pick.

Regardless of relative values (and yet Gobert likely has more)...Isaiah Thomas is the Celtics best player and the heart and soul of a very successful team. He's an All-Star talent just hitting his prime. By all accounts they are trying to take the next step and become an elite win now team. This trade wouldn't make sense for the Celtics given the above. They are already one of the better defensive teams in the NBA so adding a defensively strong C really isn't quite as pressing a need. The lottery pick (as in using it on Dunn who IMHO is overrated) to justify this trade is a bit whacky since they can trade it for a proven C if they want. Unless I'm mistaken and Danny Ainge and the Celtics are looking to win now and you can't win now if you can't score. What they need is another top scorer to compliment IT if anything. Ultimately trades are about teams and what fits where they think they are and want to be, not just always about value.

[skones]

IT is far off, and then somebody counters with a CJ for Gobert alternative? #tradeboardgonnatradeboard

It would take a top 15-20 player value wise to move Gobert. Neither of those guys are there.

[MotownMadness]

IT is far off, and then somebody counters with a CJ for Gobert alternative? #tradeboardgonnatradeboard

It would take a top 15-20 player value wise to move Gobert. Neither of those guys are there.

Yeah Gobert can just transform a defense. I wouldn't move him for anything short of a superstar. Cause on the defensive end he can impact a game just as much as any superstar does on the offense.

[165bows]

And elite defense is more valuable than elite offense.

I actually don't think that is the case.

Yeah I think that's an oversimplification too. But let's take your Deke comment. If Gobert is really Deke 2.0 then he's worth way more than Thomas---a player I absolutely love and have for a long time. I have to eat some crow because I thought Jazz fans overhyped Gobert initially and I never thought he'd have this impact. But I get to pound my chest on IT because I was a strong supporter of his going back to his Kings days.

Well you will be back in vogue again in a year and a half when Gobert is 25 and making $25M and barely cracking double digits in scoring.

Look again I really like Gobert but he's not a top ten player like people are making him out to be. When people are thinking he's one of the least tradeable guys, they are overlooking his age, his impending FA, and the volume of guys on the Jazz that are needing to get paid over the next 2-3 years.

[bondom34]

I actually don't think that is the case.

Yeah I think that's an oversimplification too. But let's take your Deke comment. If Gobert is really Deke 2.0 then he's worth way more than Thomas---a player I absolutely love and have for a long time. I have to eat some crow because I thought Jazz fans overhyped Gobert initially and I never thought he'd have this impact. But I get to pound my chest on IT because I was a strong supporter of his going back to his Kings days.

Well you will be back in vogue again in a year and a half when Gobert is 25 and making $25M and barely cracking double digits in scoring.

Look again I really like Gobert but he's not a top ten player like people are making him out to be. When people are thinking he's one of the least tradeable guys, they are overlooking his age, his impending FA, and the volume of guys on the Jazz that are needing to get paid over the next 2-3 years.

Nobody said he's a top 10 player, but he's more valuable than IT. IT's not even likely a top 10 PG. And the Jazz have no reason to get really bad value because they worry about having to pay their best players. That is a good problem.

[Texas Chuck]

Both teams would benefit a ton if they could get the other guy without giving up theirs. If the Celtics could turn their treasure trove into Gobert? Yikes. Or if the Jazz could insert Thomas into their rotation giving them a very dangerous offensive guy? Yikes.

[165bows]

Both teams would benefit a ton if they could get the other guy without giving up theirs. If the Celtics could turn their treasure trove into Gobert? Yikes. Or if the Jazz could insert Thomas into their rotation giving them a very dangerous offensive guy? Yikes.

This is a good example of people overestimating their respective versatility.

I won't argue the premise that the trade value of Gobert>IT, but the offensive improvements of Thomas helps the Jazz more than the defense helps the Celtics. Celtics are already a better defensive team without Gobert and need some playmaking ability from their bigs.

[Texas Chuck]

yeah you are fooling yourself if you don't think the Celtics defense improves significantly if you add Gobert. Even with the Celtics already having a good defense.

[pacers33granger]

Well you will be back in vogue again in a year and a half when Gobert is 25 and making $25M and barely cracking double digits in scoring.

Look again I really like Gobert but he's not a top ten player like people are making him out to be. When people are thinking he's one of the least tradeable guys, they are overlooking his age, his impending FA, and the volume of guys on the Jazz that are needing to get paid over the next 2-3 years.

In a year and a half IT will be expiring and certainly won't be making 6 mil again, plus he'll be unrestricted and will likely go for whoever pays the most, so he could easily crack 20 mil a year himself on a new contract.

[stitches]

I love Gobert like the next guy but he's clearly overrated at this point.

I mean, not really.

20ish year old rim protector who's an above average starter vs. a slightly above average starting PG in a PG heavy league. The value gap is immense.

There's barely a three year age difference between the two.

I love Gobert like the next guy but he's clearly overrated at this point.

There are only a handful of players in the league that Utah should even consider trading Rudy for, and none of them are likely to be available. Those who have labeled him untouchable have got it correct.

He's hitting his age 24 season this year and the end of his rookie contract. Gobert will be paid twice what Thomas will make over the life of Thomas' current contract.

Like I said, I like Gobert a lot, but let's be real, the guy is Dikembe Mutombo, not Shaq. Both Thomas and Gobert are highly weighted towards one half of the court in their respective strengths.

I'd take Mutombo over Terrell Brandon any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[165bows]

yeah you are fooling yourself if you don't think the Celtics defense improves significantly if you add Gobert. Even with the Celtics already having a good defense.

Is that really what you think I am saying?

I'll spell it out, the large loss of offense doesn't overcome the defensive gains, especially considering that Gobert is another non-offense creating, very low-volume scorer, an archetype that is in high supply in Boston. Boston is 9 points better on offense with Thomas on the floor than without, a gain in improvement on defense that is unattainable by adding Gobert, unless you think adding him outstrips the best defensive teams in history.

My point in this detail is that I believe people are overstating the idea that Gobert is vastly more versatile than Thomas in terms of wide ranging team fit, as Thomas is actually underrated in his offensive versatility.

[loserX]

I'm a Jazz fan, and I tend to think Gobert gets a *little* bit overhyped...I've talked before about player "molds" (rim-protecting 5s, stretch 4s, 3-and-D wings) where anyone who fits the mold gets seen as more valuable and anyone who doesn't is considered nearly-useless. Gobert certainly fits the current mold so the hype train is moving at full speed.

I'm also less sure that I used to be about "elite defence > elite offence"...I think that's really only true AS LONG AS the player is still good enough at the other end to not be a liability. (Who got drafted first: Okafor or WCS? Who got paid more this year, Kanter or Biyombo? A guy who can't play defence often still has more value than a guy who can't play offence.)

With THAT said, Gobert's offence is good enough to keep him on the court as a starter, at least for as much is demanded of a C. IT's defence is generally not. So I would definitely put Gobert's trade value above Thomas', and I certainly would not consider a straight-up trade.

Gobert/Favors is our identity. Slow the game down, dominate on defence. It's unlikely that we'd trade Gobert even for fair value because we'd probably have to change the entire way we play, and is that even worth it? If the Warriors were offered a Klay-Thompson-level player in trade who was very good but couldn't shoot, they'd turn it down for the same reason.

[Texas Chuck]

yeah you are fooling yourself if you don't think the Celtics defense improves significantly if you add Gobert. Even with the Celtics already having a good defense.

Is that really what you think I am saying?

I'll spell it out, the large loss of offense doesn't overcome the defensive gains, especially considering that Gobert is another non-offense creating, very low-volume scorer, an archetype that is in high supply in Boston. Boston is 9 points better on offense with Thomas on the floor than without, a gain in improvement on defense that is unattainable by adding Gobert, unless you think adding him outstrips the best defensive teams in history.

My point in this detail is that I believe people are overstating the idea that Gobert is vastly more versatile than Thomas in terms of wide ranging team fit, as Thomas is actually underrated in his offensive versatility.

Well I thought the context of our discussion had moved past swapping the two, so my apologies for misunderstanding that.

But I'd argue that Gobert helps the defense go from very good to absolutely elite--back to those KG led defenses or potentially even better. I can find another scorer to replace Thomas easier than I can find a legit defensive anchor that I could control long-term. And again this is no knock on Thomas whom I absolutely love. I'm not arguing how much he means to Boston right now. But I'm taking a more long-term view and assuming Boston can add additional offensive talent.

[Mr Loggins]

yeah you are fooling yourself if you don't think the Celtics defense improves significantly if you add Gobert. Even with the Celtics already having a good defense.

Is that really what you think I am saying?

I'll spell it out, the large loss of offense doesn't overcome the defensive gains, especially considering that Gobert is another non-offense creating, very low-volume scorer, an archetype that is in high supply in Boston. Boston is 9 points better on offense with Thomas on the floor than without, a gain in improvement on defense that is unattainable by adding Gobert, unless you think adding him outstrips the best defensive teams in history.

My point in this detail is that I believe people are overstating the idea that Gobert is vastly more versatile than Thomas in terms of wide ranging team fit, as Thomas is actually underrated in his offensive versatility.

Well I thought the context of our discussion had moved past swapping the two, so my apologies for misunderstanding that.

But I'd argue that Gobert helps the defense go from very good to absolutely elite--back to those KG led defenses or potentially even better. I can find another scorer to replace Thomas easier than I can find a legit defensive anchor that I could control long-term. And again this is no knock on Thomas whom I absolutely love. I'm not arguing how much he means to Boston right now. But I'm taking a more long-term view and assuming Boston can add additional offensive talent.

This - the long term view - goes to my point. If you erase all rosters, how many GM's take IT without hesitation? His height & score first mentality bring roster composition questions.

Not saying IT isn't good, but I'd feel much better having Avery Bradley - defined 3&D SG - and trusting my ability to put 4 complementary pieces around him than I would about IT

[165bows]

I'm a Jazz fan, and I tend to think Gobert gets a *little* bit overhyped...I've talked before about player "molds" (rim-protecting 5s, stretch 4s, 3-and-D wings) where anyone who fits the mold gets seen as more valuable and anyone who doesn't is considered nearly-useless. Gobert certainly fits the current mold so the hype train is moving at full speed.

I'm also less sure that I used to be about "elite defence > elite offence"...I think that's really only true AS LONG AS the player is still good enough at the other end to not be a liability. (Who got drafted first: Okafor or WCS? Who got paid more this year, Kanter or Biyombo? A guy who can't play defence often still has more value than a guy who can't play offence.)

With THAT said, Gobert's offence is good enough to keep him on the court as a starter, at least for as much is demanded of a C. IT's defence is generally not. So I would definitely put Gobert's trade value above Thomas', and I certainly would not consider a straight-up trade.

Gobert/Favors is our identity. Slow the game down, dominate on defence. It's unlikely that we'd trade Gobert even for fair value because we'd probably have to change the entire way we play, and is that even worth it? If the Warriors were offered a Klay-Thompson-level player in trade who was very good but couldn't shoot, they'd turn it down for the same reason.

I think this is a very reasonable and measured take, and largely the gist of the point I am making.

I don't agree entirely with the assessment of Thomas' D, as he was the leading minutes getter on a top five defense this year, but overall this is a good take, IMO.

[HawaiianJazzFan]

I actually don't think that is the case.

Yeah I think that's an oversimplification too. But let's take your Deke comment. If Gobert is really Deke 2.0 then he's worth way more than Thomas---a player I absolutely love and have for a long time. I have to eat some crow because I thought Jazz fans overhyped Gobert initially and I never thought he'd have this impact. But I get to pound my chest on IT because I was a strong supporter of his going back to his Kings days.

Well you will be back in vogue again in a year and a half when Gobert is 25 and making $25M and barely cracking double digits in scoring.

Look again I really like Gobert but he's not a top ten player like people are making him out to be. When people are thinking he's one of the least tradeable guys, they are overlooking his age, his impending FA, and the volume of guys on the Jazz that are needing to get paid over the next 2-3 years.

The Jazz had a 55% win percentage when Gobert played this year and that's pretty close to where the Celtics were this year. They won 55% of their games and that was including games where favors, Burks, Exum etc. missed as well, but they still won because Gobert makes things hell for other teams offenses. The Jazz have a top 3 defense when he steps on the floor (and it doesn't matter who is with him) and when he was out our defense was in the middle half of the league. He's is an absolute game changer defensively. He's frustrating on offense and his hands offensively need a ton of work but simply put we defend at an elite level when he plays and more importantly, we win.

[KqWIN]

The premise for this trade doesn't make much sense. First thing to note is that Dante Exum did not die, he was injured. He's still on the roster, and it doesn't appear that the FO's confidence has wavered. That said, he's a still a largely unproven young player, which brings me to my next point. Trey Lyles is also a developing a young player, and Kris Dunn isn't even an NBA player yet. The whole idea of Utah adding a PG is because the one they have is young and inexperienced. If that's the motivation, it wouldn't make sense to do a trade that leaves Utah with a young and inexperienced PF and leaves Boston with a young and inexperienced PG themselves.

Also, as others have noted, the fit doesn't work that well. I don't want to get too much into IT vs Gobert, but I do believe that Gobert has more value. However, I can see why a Boston fan would be reluctant to make this trade. Guys like Bradley and Crowder are great players, but they don't create. IT has so much value to Boston because he's the only creator Boston has. You switch out IT for Gobert, and then you have no one to create offense. Gobert would be great for Boston, no doubt about it, but their defense is doing just fine without him. On the other hand, their offense would go in the tank without IT or someone like him.

I feel the same way about IT in Utah. We would made a huge mistake by not getting him the first place, but that doesn't mean we should trade Gobert and change the entire way we play to get him now. IT would add a lot to Utah, but not as much as he does for Boston because Hayward and Hood already good with the ball in his hands. Having a scoring PG would be great, but it's not a desperate need. It's a luxury we can't afford at the expense of Rudy Gobert. You can honestly put any PG not named Trey Burke into our starting lineup and it would be far into the green.

[Prokorov]

i think maybe IT and the nets pick. but definitely not straight up