Moderators: FJS, Inigo Montoya
Wolverine wrote:I think Bogut is the most realistic target here. Warriors may be looking to dump him.
EDITED:
Ok too slow, Dallas got him. Wouldve been a great big off the bench at 10mil
KDBG wrote:If we did have to give up one of Favors or Hayward, who would you give up? Hayward is our best player at the moment, but Westbrook would make Favors a star. He would easily average over 20 a game.
noneyadb wrote:KDBG wrote:If we did have to give up one of Favors or Hayward, who would you give up? Hayward is our best player at the moment, but Westbrook would make Favors a star. He would easily average over 20 a game.
Easy, Hayward and Exum for Westbrook. That's likely better than anything else OKC will receive, and it still leaves the Jazz with a very competitive roster.
KqWIN wrote:Why are we talking about Middleton, Harris, and Porter?
The real decision the Jazz FO is making is between Continuity, Cap Flexibility, and Cash Considerations.
Inigo Montoya wrote:I'm all for going after Westbrook, provided an assurance he'll resign, which is something you find out before you trade for him. As the Ibaka trade showed, Presti is pretty good at getting good value in trades even when what he's giving up is a one year rental. He'll know how to get the most out of Westbrook, or at the very least, he won't be shellacked.
KqWIN wrote:
Who are we going trade then, Exum?The Jazz have zero shot at getting Westbrook. If Westbrook gets moved, it's going to be younger pieces with more upside. Boston, LAL, and Philly could blow us out of the water with those types of assets.
KqWIN wrote:Why are we talking about Middleton, Harris, and Porter?
The real decision the Jazz FO is making is between Continuity, Cap Flexibility, and Cash Considerations.
noneyadb wrote:KDBG wrote:If we did have to give up one of Favors or Hayward, who would you give up? Hayward is our best player at the moment, but Westbrook would make Favors a star. He would easily average over 20 a game.
Easy, Hayward and Exum for Westbrook. That's likely better than anything else OKC will receive, and it still leaves the Jazz with a very competitive roster.
GobertReport wrote:noneyadb wrote:KDBG wrote:If we did have to give up one of Favors or Hayward, who would you give up? Hayward is our best player at the moment, but Westbrook would make Favors a star. He would easily average over 20 a game.
Easy, Hayward and Exum for Westbrook. That's likely better than anything else OKC will receive, and it still leaves the Jazz with a very competitive roster.
I don't think they will want Hayward because of contract, I think Hood, Lyles, rights to all foreign players, and a bunch of firsts gets it done.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
KDBG wrote:GobertReport wrote:noneyadb wrote:
Easy, Hayward and Exum for Westbrook. That's likely better than anything else OKC will receive, and it still leaves the Jazz with a very competitive roster.
I don't think they will want Hayward because of contract, I think Hood, Lyles, rights to all foreign players, and a bunch of firsts gets it done.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I think they might ask for Exum too. Hood, Lyles, Exum, 2017, and 2019 unprotected 1sts is what I would think they would ask for.
GobertReport wrote:KDBG wrote:GobertReport wrote:
I don't think they will want Hayward because of contract, I think Hood, Lyles, rights to all foreign players, and a bunch of firsts gets it done.
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I think they might ask for Exum too. Hood, Lyles, Exum, 2017, and 2019 unprotected 1sts is what I would think they would ask for.
I wouldn't do it, they are going to be in a buyers market knowing that Russ might leave them.
KDBG wrote:GobertReport wrote:KDBG wrote:I think they might ask for Exum too. Hood, Lyles, Exum, 2017, and 2019 unprotected 1sts is what I would think they would ask for.
I wouldn't do it, they are going to be in a buyers market knowing that Russ might leave them.
I just think Boston with 2 Nets 1sts and young players would trump our offer if we didn't add Exum.
Inigo Montoya wrote:KqWIN wrote:
Who are we going trade then, Exum?
What about all those years the Jazz were in "asset collection" mode? I guess it was another front office line.
I'll echo what Luigi (and myself) said before: we can't keep all of our players, so we may as well trade them while we can get the most for them. Now that OKC may be imploding we can't say there isn't a superstar available to be traded. All those assets we were supposedly collecting should count for something, or this is a FO fail and a sell job of knowingly building a mediocre future under false pretenses. We wanted assets so we can pounce on a Harden-type deal. Well, now is the time.
KqWIN wrote:Inigo Montoya wrote:KqWIN wrote:
Who are we going trade then, Exum?
What about all those years the Jazz were in "asset collection" mode? I guess it was another front office line.
I'll echo what Luigi (and myself) said before: we can't keep all of our players, so we may as well trade them while we can get the most for them. Now that OKC may be imploding we can't say there isn't a superstar available to be traded. All those assets we were supposedly collecting should count for something, or this is a FO fail and a sell job of knowingly building a mediocre future under false pretenses. We wanted assets so we can pounce on a Harden-type deal. Well, now is the time.
I'm just saying that OKC has way more reason to believe that they can resign Westbrook than Utah. It's a contradiction to say that it's a good risk for us, but then also say that OKC should trade him because the risk is too high. I'm all for getting Westbrook, but we don't have a trade for them.
Hayward and Favors aren't that much younger than Westbrook, so why would it make sense for them to swap their star situation with us? There's two sides to a trade. The same reasons we want Westbrook is the same reasons why they want to keep him. Lot's of people around here like to bring up the point that you can't win a championship without a superstar, and complain that the Jazz have no one on their team that is or can be a superstar. Not saying that there's anything wrong with that line of thinking, but Russell Westbrook is a bonafide elite superstar, so why would they trade him for a bunch of assets that won't turn into superstars? Some people would go as far as to say that our best players are just perpetuating our mediocrity, and since we won't win a championship it's just a complete time waste. Why would the Thunder want to move on from Westbrook if that's the case?
All I'm saying is that we don't have the right pieces to trade for Westbrook. If you can get Westbrook, you get him, but I don't think that's a real option for us. Maybe we can use a third team to swing a deal, but it's still highly unlikely. If the whole goal is to have a superstar, OKC's best plan of action is to take their chances on Westbrook, or move him for very young players and draft picks.
KqWIN wrote:Why are we talking about Middleton, Harris, and Porter?
The real decision the Jazz FO is making is between Continuity, Cap Flexibility, and Cash Considerations.
Inigo Montoya wrote:KqWIN wrote:Inigo Montoya wrote:
What about all those years the Jazz were in "asset collection" mode? I guess it was another front office line.
I'll echo what Luigi (and myself) said before: we can't keep all of our players, so we may as well trade them while we can get the most for them. Now that OKC may be imploding we can't say there isn't a superstar available to be traded. All those assets we were supposedly collecting should count for something, or this is a FO fail and a sell job of knowingly building a mediocre future under false pretenses. We wanted assets so we can pounce on a Harden-type deal. Well, now is the time.
I'm just saying that OKC has way more reason to believe that they can resign Westbrook than Utah. It's a contradiction to say that it's a good risk for us, but then also say that OKC should trade him because the risk is too high. I'm all for getting Westbrook, but we don't have a trade for them.
Hayward and Favors aren't that much younger than Westbrook, so why would it make sense for them to swap their star situation with us? There's two sides to a trade. The same reasons we want Westbrook is the same reasons why they want to keep him. Lot's of people around here like to bring up the point that you can't win a championship without a superstar, and complain that the Jazz have no one on their team that is or can be a superstar. Not saying that there's anything wrong with that line of thinking, but Russell Westbrook is a bonafide elite superstar, so why would they trade him for a bunch of assets that won't turn into superstars? Some people would go as far as to say that our best players are just perpetuating our mediocrity, and since we won't win a championship it's just a complete time waste. Why would the Thunder want to move on from Westbrook if that's the case?
All I'm saying is that we don't have the right pieces to trade for Westbrook. If you can get Westbrook, you get him, but I don't think that's a real option for us. Maybe we can use a third team to swing a deal, but it's still highly unlikely. If the whole goal is to have a superstar, OKC's best plan of action is to take their chances on Westbrook, or move him for very young players and draft picks.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. I just used your post about how the Jazz don't have the pieces to bring up the point that the whole "asset collection" mode was a way to delude the fans to give the team more time to operate with less pressure. If all our assets aren't good enough for other team to send us a superstar in return (like you said, why should they?) then all those years of collecting our assets were either a failure or a red herring, likely both.
KqWIN wrote:Why are we talking about Middleton, Harris, and Porter?
The real decision the Jazz FO is making is between Continuity, Cap Flexibility, and Cash Considerations.
Inigo Montoya wrote:That's why I said you find out first if he's willing to resign before you make the trade. And I don't think anyone ever called Favors "horrible" non star, though I'd argue that Love fits much better with this team. Better offensive player by a mile, can shoot from anywhere, better rebounder, and a far superior passer. Favor's defense is better of course, but Love fits this team quite well, and he's locked for at least 3 more years. In fact, with the salary cap rise, Favors' next deal might make him cost more per year than Love, and let's not forget he already gave the Jazz a home discount once and may not want to do it again.
GobertReport wrote:KDBG wrote:GobertReport wrote:
I wouldn't do it, they are going to be in a buyers market knowing that Russ might leave them.
I just think Boston with 2 Nets 1sts and young players would trump our offer if we didn't add Exum.
But what young players do they have are better than Hood, Burks, and Lyles.
noneyadb wrote:GobertReport wrote:KDBG wrote:I just think Boston with 2 Nets 1sts and young players would trump our offer if we didn't add Exum.
But what young players do they have are better than Hood, Burks, and Lyles.
If the Jazz offer Hood, Lyles, and Burks than the FO should all be fired. That is ridiculous to give up their depth for a very possible one year rental.
