Moderators: Andre Roberstan, HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Texas Chuck, MoneyTalks41890, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, Trader_Joe, loserX
eminence wrote:Hell no. You don't move a top 10 player on long-term deal for a single pretty good prospect.
stitches wrote:GobertReport wrote:stitches wrote:Not really. I disagree with that. The top of the draft is usually pretty good and No. 1 picks are by far the very top of the ladder(as in most prospects hit and turn into all-stars). Most of them become all-stars and significant portion of them are perennial all-stars.
True but then I can point out Bowie, Kandi Man, Marvin Williams, OJ Mayo, etc, top ten doesn't always mean All Star, its a risk.
You are arguing something completely different than what this trade proposes. I'm talking about no. 1 pick. Not top 10. I'm not trading Gobert for Miles Bridges or Marquese Chriss. We are trading for the no. 1 pick in the draft.
GobertReport wrote:stitches wrote:GobertReport wrote:
True but then I can point out Bowie, Kandi Man, Marvin Williams, OJ Mayo, etc, top ten doesn't always mean All Star, its a risk.
You are arguing something completely different than what this trade proposes. I'm talking about no. 1 pick. Not top 10. I'm not trading Gobert for Miles Bridges or Marquese Chriss. We are trading for the no. 1 pick in the draft.
Anthony Bennett, Kandi Man, Kwame Brown, Greg Oden...
stitches wrote:Hypothetical 1: Boston doesn't pull off a trade before the draft.
Hypothetical 2: Boston lands Fultz in the draft
Hypothetical 3: Hayward decides to leave in the summer and chooses Boston.
Trade:
Utah trades: Rudy Gobert
Utah receives: Markelle Fultz + filler(to make the numbers work)
Boston trades: Markelle Fultz + filler(to make the numbers work)
Boston receives: Rudy Gobert
Why for Utah: Utah will probably lose both Hayward and Hill if Hayward leaves and the team will be left in the position of being close to a treadmill team with a roster that's probably going to be good enough to hover around .500 - bad enough to not be a real threat in the West, and good enough to not get close to the top of the lottery and supplement the team with star talent. The Jazz decide to not waste Gobert's prime and start their rebuild with what might amount to be a star player in Fultz. The Jazz start their rebuilt around Fultz-Exum-Hood-Lyles-picks core. (Probably will have to trade Favors for future assets too).
Why for Boston: If Boston gets Hayward they will be extremely close to being a true contender and they will have very few weaknesses. Gobert addresses pretty much all of them - the best interior defense in the league, elite rebounding, the ultimate eraser for IT's weaknesses on D.
Thoughts?
UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Are you crazy?
Why in the world would be trade Gobert? Let alone for a totally unknown rookie. He's already a top 20 (maybe even higher) talent that's still super young and on an incredible contract. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it around Gobert. He's already better than Fultz might end up ever being and he's only going to improve. Why in the world would you take that gamble? It's a massive risk with extremely slim rewards assuming it does work out. Gobert is already in the talks for DPOY and will soon be in the talks for MVP.
If we're making a trade with Boston in the case of Hayward leaving, we're doing a sign and trade with Hayward. Nothing else.
Boston would do this in a heart-beat and would be laughing all the way. They'd never lose a game with a core of IT, Bradley, Hayward, Horford, Gobert.
RR9 wrote:eminence wrote:Hell no. You don't move a top 10 player on long-term deal for a single pretty good prospect.
assuming longterm means 2+ years,
Davis
Westbrook
Leonard
Harden
Curry
Butler
George
Giannis
Cousins
Derozan
Irving
Lilliard
are all better than Gobert. Top 10's a stretch...but maybe top 20. I excluded Lebron, Durant, IT, and KAT (Rookie contract).
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Texas Chuck wrote:
I think your list is too long. I can't imagine Derozan, Kyrie, or Dame are more valuable. Cousins definitely isn't. I'd not take PG or Butler over him either.
AD, Westbrook, Leonard, Harden, Curry I can see it. Giannis is close, but I understand why some would pick him. Everyone else I'm taking Gobert over.
stitches wrote:So Chuck, you didn't give your opinion - ignore the value here. Lets assume Boston is willing to pay it(be it 1 BKN pick or both, or some other combination of their assets). Do you think it's reasonable to trade Gobert in case the Jazz lose Hill and Hayward? If it were you would you try to retool around Gobert or do you think the Jazz will be better served to start from zero-ish with high end assets like the ones Boston can pay? I would appreciate your input. Thanks.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
stitches wrote:UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Are you crazy?
Why in the world would be trade Gobert? Let alone for a totally unknown rookie. He's already a top 20 (maybe even higher) talent that's still super young and on an incredible contract. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it around Gobert. He's already better than Fultz might end up ever being and he's only going to improve. Why in the world would you take that gamble? It's a massive risk with extremely slim rewards assuming it does work out. Gobert is already in the talks for DPOY and will soon be in the talks for MVP.
If we're making a trade with Boston in the case of Hayward leaving, we're doing a sign and trade with Hayward. Nothing else.
Boston would do this in a heart-beat and would be laughing all the way. They'd never lose a game with a core of IT, Bradley, Hayward, Horford, Gobert.
I'm sorry I can't take this seriously.
Of course Fultz might never become as good as Gobert is now... but he might also become an MVP contender. This is not the point here. You are all acting like we will be picking a prospect out of a hat. That's not the case!!! You are picking the No.1 player in this year's draft, who IMO has a very realistic chance to be a perennial all-star in due time and is much easier to build around(when you account for the picks that will be coming our way in the following 1-2 years).
Among all the Jazz fans replies I can sense a lot of emotion, which I can appreciate and don't think I wouldn't hate seeing Rudy leave myself, but I also see not a lot of realistic arguments against my main point - if we lose Hayward and Hill, this team will be hovering around .500 for the foreseeable future. Make the case with realistic trades/free agency acquisitions that will make the Jazz as good as we are now, let alone better(something we will need to be if we need to be contenders). Just do it.
Here's your team sans Hill and Hayward:
PGs: Dante Exum, Raul Neto
SGs: Rodney Hood, Alec Burks
SFs: Joe Johnson(for 1 year, probably retires after), Joe Ingles(RFA, lets assume we keep him)
PFs: Derrick Favors(for 1 year, unknown if we can keep him after we lost Hayward and Hill and didn't give him the extension he wanted), Trey Lyles
Cs: Rudy Gobert
Picks:
-25, 30, 44, 55 in 2017 draft
-own first, OKC first(lottery protected) in 2018 draft
Draft out a plan where we will be better than the current Jazz roster in the next 4 years(until Gobert's contract expires and he just leaves for nothing). Try to make it realistic.
UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:stitches wrote:UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:Are you crazy?
Why in the world would be trade Gobert? Let alone for a totally unknown rookie. He's already a top 20 (maybe even higher) talent that's still super young and on an incredible contract. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it around Gobert. He's already better than Fultz might end up ever being and he's only going to improve. Why in the world would you take that gamble? It's a massive risk with extremely slim rewards assuming it does work out. Gobert is already in the talks for DPOY and will soon be in the talks for MVP.
If we're making a trade with Boston in the case of Hayward leaving, we're doing a sign and trade with Hayward. Nothing else.
Boston would do this in a heart-beat and would be laughing all the way. They'd never lose a game with a core of IT, Bradley, Hayward, Horford, Gobert.
I'm sorry I can't take this seriously.
Of course Fultz might never become as good as Gobert is now... but he might also become an MVP contender. This is not the point here. You are all acting like we will be picking a prospect out of a hat. That's not the case!!! You are picking the No.1 player in this year's draft, who IMO has a very realistic chance to be a perennial all-star in due time and is much easier to build around(when you account for the picks that will be coming our way in the following 1-2 years).
Among all the Jazz fans replies I can sense a lot of emotion, which I can appreciate and don't think I wouldn't hate seeing Rudy leave myself, but I also see not a lot of realistic arguments against my main point - if we lose Hayward and Hill, this team will be hovering around .500 for the foreseeable future. Make the case with realistic trades/free agency acquisitions that will make the Jazz as good as we are now, let alone better(something we will need to be if we need to be contenders). Just do it.
Here's your team sans Hill and Hayward:
PGs: Dante Exum, Raul Neto
SGs: Rodney Hood, Alec Burks
SFs: Joe Johnson(for 1 year, probably retires after), Joe Ingles(RFA, lets assume we keep him)
PFs: Derrick Favors(for 1 year, unknown if we can keep him after we lost Hayward and Hill and didn't give him the extension he wanted), Trey Lyles
Cs: Rudy Gobert
Picks:
-25, 30, 44, 55 in 2017 draft
-own first, OKC first(lottery protected) in 2018 draft
Draft out a plan where we will be better than the current Jazz roster in the next 4 years(until Gobert's contract expires and he just leaves for nothing). Try to make it realistic.
How can you not take that seriously? He's arguably the greatest influence on defense in the league and his offensive game isn't far behind. Just because he doesn't jack up 30 shots a game doesn't mean he can't be a massive factor on offense. I think you need to go educate yourself on just how good Gobert has been this year.
12buckets wrote:UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:stitches wrote:I'm sorry I can't take this seriously.
Of course Fultz might never become as good as Gobert is now... but he might also become an MVP contender. This is not the point here. You are all acting like we will be picking a prospect out of a hat. That's not the case!!! You are picking the No.1 player in this year's draft, who IMO has a very realistic chance to be a perennial all-star in due time and is much easier to build around(when you account for the picks that will be coming our way in the following 1-2 years).
Among all the Jazz fans replies I can sense a lot of emotion, which I can appreciate and don't think I wouldn't hate seeing Rudy leave myself, but I also see not a lot of realistic arguments against my main point - if we lose Hayward and Hill, this team will be hovering around .500 for the foreseeable future. Make the case with realistic trades/free agency acquisitions that will make the Jazz as good as we are now, let alone better(something we will need to be if we need to be contenders). Just do it.
Here's your team sans Hill and Hayward:
PGs: Dante Exum, Raul Neto
SGs: Rodney Hood, Alec Burks
SFs: Joe Johnson(for 1 year, probably retires after), Joe Ingles(RFA, lets assume we keep him)
PFs: Derrick Favors(for 1 year, unknown if we can keep him after we lost Hayward and Hill and didn't give him the extension he wanted), Trey Lyles
Cs: Rudy Gobert
Picks:
-25, 30, 44, 55 in 2017 draft
-own first, OKC first(lottery protected) in 2018 draft
Draft out a plan where we will be better than the current Jazz roster in the next 4 years(until Gobert's contract expires and he just leaves for nothing). Try to make it realistic.
How can you not take that seriously? He's arguably the greatest influence on defense in the league and his offensive game isn't far behind. Just because he doesn't jack up 30 shots a game doesn't mean he can't be a massive factor on offense. I think you need to go educate yourself on just how good Gobert has been this year.
If Hayward and Hill leave, then the Jazz won't be good enough for Gobert to have any shot of being in the MVP discussion. He'll be a great player for those who watch Jazz games, but that won't be a national audience and he won't be getting credit for enough wins. Look to Demarcus Cousins and Anthony Davis for examples of that.
I love when fans are passionate about a player and have a real connection with someone they spend so much time and energy rooting for, and it's easy to see that Gobert is that kind of player.
But I hate when teams become treadmills, and get stuck in a cycle of mediocrity that doesn't allow for internal improvement or high draft picks to get help from outside. The problem is that it's really easy to be optimistic, and you never know for sure if that's going to be the result until you get there. By that point it's too late and you've wasted a couple seasons. Paul George sees this writing on the wall and the Pacers are in a weird spot with him because of it.
I credit the OP for being willing to accept this probability and be aggressive in avoiding this pitfall, as unlikely of a course as it is. The mistake was not asking for enough. Gobert to that Celtics team would be a dream, and I'd ask for all of Fultz, Brown, and next seasons BKN pick. Don't settle for just the one. There's no one else the Celtics could trade for that would make that sort of impact and it would be way more worth it to them to go all in for Gobert if they already had Hayward than it would be to add a guy like Jimmy Butler to the team right now.
UTJazzFan_Echo1 wrote:How can you not take that seriously? He's arguably the greatest influence on defense in the league and his offensive game isn't far behind. Just because he doesn't jack up 30 shots a game doesn't mean he can't be a massive factor on offense. I think you need to go educate yourself on just how good Gobert has been this year.
KqWIN wrote:The idea isn't that crazy, but this just isn't a realistic trade. If Hayward leaves, I am 1000% confident that the Jazz scavenge what they can and try to sneak into the playoffs. I'm not saying I like it, but I think anyone who's observed the Jazz franchise over the years would understand what the most realistic direction they would take.
It's similar to the Love-Wiggins trade, but I think the Gobert has more value than Love had at the time. Love was already on his way out, whereas Rudy is locked in for 4 years and committed to the franchise. I'd assume that Utah would want more than what Minnesota received because the situation is more favorable.
stitches wrote:KqWIN wrote:The idea isn't that crazy, but this just isn't a realistic trade. If Hayward leaves, I am 1000% confident that the Jazz scavenge what they can and try to sneak into the playoffs. I'm not saying I like it, but I think anyone who's observed the Jazz franchise over the years would understand what the most realistic direction they would take.
It's similar to the Love-Wiggins trade, but I think the Gobert has more value than Love had at the time. Love was already on his way out, whereas Rudy is locked in for 4 years and committed to the franchise. I'd assume that Utah would want more than what Minnesota received because the situation is more favorable.
Yeah, I think we won't have the guts to do it, either. It would be quite brutal for the fanbase to lose Hayward and then Gobert and to tell them - hey, we are starting from (close to) zero all over again. I don't think they will be willing to do it. And I think it will be a mistake, but oh well...
With that said, I think I might have underestimated Gobert's value in the OP, mainly because of his good 4 years contract. That's huge positive and the Jazz would probably be able to bargain for more than just the Fultz.
Return to Trades and Transactions
