Markkanen to San Antonio, how many picks?

[Godaddycurse]

eh in this draft i think most if not all other teams would prefer 3 future picks + keyonte george over #4

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's debatable, and that's my point. All of the Minnesota picks aren't much more than a single pick here. There is no comparison, pretending there have to be x many picks just because there were in some past trade without considering the prospects of those picks is disingeuous,

The first thing I will say is that you can only judge the deal at the time. I don't think people saw Minnesota as an appreciably better situation than Atlanta when they traded for Gobert. Most people thought Rudy was overrated (wrong), that Minnesota had committed all their assets to getting him (mostly correct) and that the upside of a team with Rudy + KAT was really low (wrong). But that trade was more than the picks and there were a ton of them coming from a team that - outside of Edwards - would be aging out on the backend (those 2027-2029 picks).

Utah trades: Rudy Gobert
Minnesota trades: Malik Beasley, Leandro Bolmaro, Patrick Beverley, Jarred Vanderbilt, Walker Kessler, 2023 MIN 1st, 2025 MIN 1st, 2026 pick swap option, 2027 MIN 1st, 2028 pick swap option, 2029 MIN 1st (1-4 protected)

Then you have the follow-up:

Mike Conley + Jarred Vanderbilt + Malik Beasley + Nickeil Alexander-Walker + 2025 & 2026 UTA 2nd for Russell Westbrook (released) + 2027 LAL 1st (1-4 protected)
Conley certainly was not worth that pick loosely protected, so part of the value is in the Minnesota guys (specifically, Vanderbilt) and the 2nds. It's hard to attribute exactly what value Conley/Vanderbilt/NAW all contributed, but I don't think it is fair to call that nothing.

From Minnesota we essentially received five first round picks as Kessler had just been selected + players that facilitated other deals.

My assertion was also that Lauri would return EITHER 4 + 1 ATL 1st + 1 other asset, or 8 + both ATL 1sts. I have:

Kessler + 2023 MIN 1st >> 8 (frankly I have that as more value than the 4th pick in this draft, too)
2025 MIN 1st + 2027 MIN 1st + 2026 MIN swap >= 2025 ATL 1st
2029 MIN 1st + 2028 swap option > 2027 ATL 1st

+ the additional value that contributed to the 2027 LAL 1st that is loosely protected.

Now, if you want to say "San Antonio wouldn't do that for an expiring player" I think that is pretty reasonable, but the deal for Gobert was widely thought at the time to be absolutely asinine - I know because I was one of the only people who thought it was fair value and there was a tongue-in-cheek joke going around about me saying "5 1sts for Gobert" and then that being his actual value (which I got a chuckle about, still felt I was right, was proven that was the market, and now it appears to have been worth it).

If push comes to shove there are probably some ways to balance this one way or the other if both teams were interested in the foundation of this (e.g., turn one of the picks into the lower of SAS/ATL 1sts, or have Utah include pick 29, or turn something into a swap where Utah sends back one of its 3 2025 or 2027 1sts), but I think this value is about right for Utah to move off a player they can renegotiate and extend, and I don't think - so long as Lauri would resign with a team - that they would regret making the move.

You dont own a 2028 swap and the 29 1st is top 5 protected

[babyjax13]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's debatable, and that's my point. All of the Minnesota picks aren't much more than a single pick here. There is no comparison, pretending there have to be x many picks just because there were in some past trade without considering the prospects of those picks is disingeuous,

The first thing I will say is that you can only judge the deal at the time. I don't think people saw Minnesota as an appreciably better situation than Atlanta when they traded for Gobert. Most people thought Rudy was overrated (wrong), that Minnesota had committed all their assets to getting him (mostly correct) and that the upside of a team with Rudy + KAT was really low (wrong). But that trade was more than the picks and there were a ton of them coming from a team that - outside of Edwards - would be aging out on the backend (those 2027-2029 picks).

Utah trades: Rudy Gobert
Minnesota trades: Malik Beasley, Leandro Bolmaro, Patrick Beverley, Jarred Vanderbilt, Walker Kessler, 2023 MIN 1st, 2025 MIN 1st, 2026 pick swap option, 2027 MIN 1st, 2028 pick swap option, 2029 MIN 1st (1-4 protected)

Then you have the follow-up:

Mike Conley + Jarred Vanderbilt + Malik Beasley + Nickeil Alexander-Walker + 2025 & 2026 UTA 2nd for Russell Westbrook (released) + 2027 LAL 1st (1-4 protected)
Conley certainly was not worth that pick loosely protected, so part of the value is in the Minnesota guys (specifically, Vanderbilt) and the 2nds. It's hard to attribute exactly what value Conley/Vanderbilt/NAW all contributed, but I don't think it is fair to call that nothing.

From Minnesota we essentially received five first round picks as Kessler had just been selected + players that facilitated other deals.

My assertion was also that Lauri would return EITHER 4 + 1 ATL 1st + 1 other asset, or 8 + both ATL 1sts. I have:

Kessler + 2023 MIN 1st >> 8 (frankly I have that as more value than the 4th pick in this draft, too)
2025 MIN 1st + 2027 MIN 1st + 2026 MIN swap >= 2025 ATL 1st
2029 MIN 1st + 2028 swap option > 2027 ATL 1st

+ the additional value that contributed to the 2027 LAL 1st that is loosely protected.

Now, if you want to say "San Antonio wouldn't do that for an expiring player" I think that is pretty reasonable, but the deal for Gobert was widely thought at the time to be absolutely asinine - I know because I was one of the only people who thought it was fair value and there was a tongue-in-cheek joke going around about me saying "5 1sts for Gobert" and then that being his actual value (which I got a chuckle about, still felt I was right, was proven that was the market, and now it appears to have been worth it).

If push comes to shove there are probably some ways to balance this one way or the other if both teams were interested in the foundation of this (e.g., turn one of the picks into the lower of SAS/ATL 1sts, or have Utah include pick 29, or turn something into a swap where Utah sends back one of its 3 2025 or 2027 1sts), but I think this value is about right for Utah to move off a player they can renegotiate and extend, and I don't think - so long as Lauri would resign with a team - that they would regret making the move.

You dont own a 2028 swap and the 29 1st is top 5 protected

Crossed wires with the Cleveland trade. I still think it is more value, but Wemby is probably right that it is a bit too much for Lauri.

[wemby]

eh in this draft i think most if not all other teams would prefer 3 future picks + keyonte george over #4

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's debatable, and that's my point. All of the Minnesota picks aren't much more than a single pick here. There is no comparison, pretending there have to be x many picks just because there were in some past trade without considering the prospects of those picks is disingeuous,

The first thing I will say is that you can only judge the deal at the time. I don't think people saw Minnesota as an appreciably better situation than Atlanta when they traded for Gobert. Most people thought Rudy was overrated (wrong), that Minnesota had committed all their assets to getting him (mostly correct) and that the upside of a team with Rudy + KAT was really low (wrong). But that trade was more than the picks and there were a ton of them coming from a team that - outside of Edwards - would be aging out on the backend (those 2027-2029 picks).

Utah trades: Rudy Gobert
Minnesota trades: Malik Beasley, Leandro Bolmaro, Patrick Beverley, Jarred Vanderbilt, Walker Kessler, 2023 MIN 1st, 2025 MIN 1st, 2026 pick swap option, 2027 MIN 1st, 2028 pick swap option, 2029 MIN 1st (1-4 protected)

Then you have the follow-up:

Mike Conley + Jarred Vanderbilt + Malik Beasley + Nickeil Alexander-Walker + 2025 & 2026 UTA 2nd for Russell Westbrook (released) + 2027 LAL 1st (1-4 protected)
Conley certainly was not worth that pick loosely protected, so part of the value is in the Minnesota guys (specifically, Vanderbilt) and the 2nds. It's hard to attribute exactly what value Conley/Vanderbilt/NAW all contributed, but I don't think it is fair to call that nothing.

From Minnesota we essentially received five first round picks as Kessler had just been selected + players that facilitated other deals.

My assertion was also that Lauri would return EITHER 4 + 1 ATL 1st + 1 other asset, or 8 + both ATL 1sts. I have:

Kessler + 2023 MIN 1st >> 8 (frankly I have that as more value than the 4th pick in this draft, too)
2025 MIN 1st + 2027 MIN 1st + 2026 MIN swap >= 2025 ATL 1st
2029 MIN 1st + 2028 swap option > 2027 ATL 1st

+ the additional value that contributed to the 2027 LAL 1st that is loosely protected.

Now, if you want to say "San Antonio wouldn't do that for an expiring player" I think that is pretty reasonable, but the deal for Gobert was widely thought at the time to be absolutely asinine - I know because I was one of the only people who thought it was fair value and there was a tongue-in-cheek joke going around about me saying "5 1sts for Gobert" and then that being his actual value (which I got a chuckle about, still felt I was right, was proven that was the market, and now it appears to have been worth it).

If push comes to shove there are probably some ways to balance this one way or the other if both teams were interested in the foundation of this (e.g., turn one of the picks into the lower of SAS/ATL 1sts, or have Utah include pick 29, or turn something into a swap where Utah sends back one of its 3 2025 or 2027 1sts), but I think this value is about right for Utah to move off a player they can renegotiate and extend, and I don't think - so long as Lauri would resign with a team - that they would regret making the move.

1) You can't ask others to judge the deal at the time, then pretend Kessler was his present self rather than a pick in the 20s no one expected much from. Also, Minnesota was an ascending team in desperate need of a defensive anchor, to whom you were trading a perennial DPOY. Did you expect them to get worse immediately? Any reasonable expectation would have them at least in the late teens for the next few years, which encompasses all but the latest of those picks.
2) Follow up trades shouldn't influence the original being discussed, especially when the overlapping parts are not the main ones (far from it). Seems like a disingenuous way to try to force the argument to fit a narrative.
3) You admit the trade was seen as a asinine, then it's by definition unreasonable to assume every future trade should abide by that same standard.
4) Whether Lauri resigns or not with whomever trades for him is a different story, nothing is guaranteed as you can see now with OG Anunoby and Siakam willing to listen to offers, that evidently was baked into their valuations and rightly so it seems.
As it stands right now, Lauri is expiring so whomever trades for him should use a valuation of rental + Bird rights + slight edge in having him get to know the team. But that's very, very different from having him on a long term, team friendly contrac, that would be drammatically different. If the Jazz extend him to such a contract then when he becomes trade eligible it's a different story, but as of today we cannot assume things not guaranteed to happen to justify a valuation.

All in all, Jazz is entirely within their right to ask for whatever they want, even if unreasonable, and that is exactly what I would expect Ainge to do, but as things stand it'd have to come down to a bidding war of sorts for Jazz get some crazy return for Lauri, Spurs aren't a Lauri away from contending, so overpaying shouldn't be a consideration. But I'd definitely field a fair offer, probably #8 + '27 pick (worse of Hawks/Spurs) + Charlotte '25 first (probably 2 good 2nds) + bunch of 2nds + Spurs players of Jazz choice (outside of Wemby / Vassell / Sochan), that would be my baseline, might add another protected future first at most, but I think that's a very fair offer

[babyjax13]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's debatable, and that's my point. All of the Minnesota picks aren't much more than a single pick here. There is no comparison, pretending there have to be x many picks just because there were in some past trade without considering the prospects of those picks is disingeuous,

The first thing I will say is that you can only judge the deal at the time. I don't think people saw Minnesota as an appreciably better situation than Atlanta when they traded for Gobert. Most people thought Rudy was overrated (wrong), that Minnesota had committed all their assets to getting him (mostly correct) and that the upside of a team with Rudy + KAT was really low (wrong). But that trade was more than the picks and there were a ton of them coming from a team that - outside of Edwards - would be aging out on the backend (those 2027-2029 picks).

Utah trades: Rudy Gobert
Minnesota trades: Malik Beasley, Leandro Bolmaro, Patrick Beverley, Jarred Vanderbilt, Walker Kessler, 2023 MIN 1st, 2025 MIN 1st, 2026 pick swap option, 2027 MIN 1st, 2028 pick swap option, 2029 MIN 1st (1-4 protected)

Then you have the follow-up:

Mike Conley + Jarred Vanderbilt + Malik Beasley + Nickeil Alexander-Walker + 2025 & 2026 UTA 2nd for Russell Westbrook (released) + 2027 LAL 1st (1-4 protected)
Conley certainly was not worth that pick loosely protected, so part of the value is in the Minnesota guys (specifically, Vanderbilt) and the 2nds. It's hard to attribute exactly what value Conley/Vanderbilt/NAW all contributed, but I don't think it is fair to call that nothing.

From Minnesota we essentially received five first round picks as Kessler had just been selected + players that facilitated other deals.

My assertion was also that Lauri would return EITHER 4 + 1 ATL 1st + 1 other asset, or 8 + both ATL 1sts. I have:

Kessler + 2023 MIN 1st >> 8 (frankly I have that as more value than the 4th pick in this draft, too)
2025 MIN 1st + 2027 MIN 1st + 2026 MIN swap >= 2025 ATL 1st
2029 MIN 1st + 2028 swap option > 2027 ATL 1st

+ the additional value that contributed to the 2027 LAL 1st that is loosely protected.

Now, if you want to say "San Antonio wouldn't do that for an expiring player" I think that is pretty reasonable, but the deal for Gobert was widely thought at the time to be absolutely asinine - I know because I was one of the only people who thought it was fair value and there was a tongue-in-cheek joke going around about me saying "5 1sts for Gobert" and then that being his actual value (which I got a chuckle about, still felt I was right, was proven that was the market, and now it appears to have been worth it).

If push comes to shove there are probably some ways to balance this one way or the other if both teams were interested in the foundation of this (e.g., turn one of the picks into the lower of SAS/ATL 1sts, or have Utah include pick 29, or turn something into a swap where Utah sends back one of its 3 2025 or 2027 1sts), but I think this value is about right for Utah to move off a player they can renegotiate and extend, and I don't think - so long as Lauri would resign with a team - that they would regret making the move.

1) You can't ask others to judge the deal at the time, then pretend Kessler was his present self rather than a pick in the 20s no one expected much from. Also, Minnesota was an ascending team in desperate need of a defensive anchor, to whom you were trading a perennial DPOY. Did you expect them to get worse immediately? Any reasonable expectation would have them at least in the late teens for the next few years, which encompasses all but the latest of those picks.
2) Follow up trades shouldn't influence the original being discussed, especially when the overlapping parts are not the main ones (far from it). Seems like a disingenuous way to try to force the argument to fit a narrative.
3) You admit the trade was seen as a asinine, then it's by definition unreasonable to assume every future trade should abide by that same standard.
4) Whether Lauri resigns or not with whomever trades for him is a different story, nothing is guaranteed as you can see now with OG Anunoby and Siakam willing to listen to offers, that evidently was baked into their valuations and rightly so it seems.
As it stands right now, Lauri is expiring so whomever trades for him should use a valuation of rental + Bird rights + slight edge in having him get to know the team. But that's very, very different from having him on a long term, team friendly contrac, that would be drammatically different. If the Jazz extend him to such a contract then when he becomes trade eligible it's a different story, but as of today we cannot assume things not guaranteed to happen to justify a valuation.

All in all, Jazz is entirely within their right to ask for whatever they want, even if unreasonable, and that is exactly what I would expect Ainge to do, but as things stand it'd have to come down to a bidding war of sorts for Jazz get some crazy return for Lauri, Spurs aren't a Lauri away from contending, so overpaying shouldn't be a consideration. But I'd definitely field a fair offer, probably #8 + '27 pick (worse of Hawks/Spurs) + Charlotte '25 first (probably 2 good 2nds) + bunch of 2nds + Spurs players of Jazz choice (outside of Wemby / Vassell / Sochan), that would be my baseline, might add another protected future first at most, but I think that's a very fair offer

8 and the worst of the 27 picks between ATL and SAS (who would have Wemby + Lauri + Vassell + guys they drafted) just isn't appealing or competitive (nor do 2nds or players outside of any of San Antonio's actually valuable guys bridge the gap - and I don't think a protected first does unless it is pretty loose).

I get that other teams can't and should not value him like we do b/c we have the power to R+E him and it seems unlikely that he would (or should) turn down that extra money. Ultimately, this is why I don't expect him to be traded, but there may be a competing team with cap issues willing to make an offer that exceeds his value as an expiring simply because the cap hit is really low.

Also, ultimately I think the price for Gobert was right & exceeds by quite a bit 8 + the 2 ATL 1sts.

[Donuts83]

Markannen is a free agent he will choose where he wants to go. smh. These packages im seeing for him are unrealistic

[wemby]

8 and the worst of the 27 picks between ATL and SAS (who would have Wemby + Lauri + Vassell + guys they drafted) just isn't appealing or competitive (nor do 2nds or players outside of any of San Antonio's actually valuable guys bridge the gap - and I don't think a protected first does unless it is pretty loose).

I get that other teams can't and should not value him like we do b/c we have the power to R+E him and it seems unlikely that he would (or should) turn down that extra money. Ultimately, this is why I don't expect him to be traded, but there may be a competing team with cap issues willing to make an offer that exceeds his value as an expiring simply because the cap hit is really low.

If the goal is maximizing the return for Lauri, for sure Jazz should just renegotiate and extend him, then forget about it until later. But this carries its own risks, in that whatever extra gains you reap, you may concede in terms of a worse own pick like you did in 2023. Think that you could have had Wemby, Brandon Miller or Coulibaly rather than Hendricks, if only you weren't so stubborn in maximizing the return for a few role players. It's a double edged sword.

[jbk1234]

This a very long debate for the Jazz aren't going to want more picks.

[Chinook]

I'm someone who really doesn't want the Spurs to trade for Mark. Like I'd prefer they not even pick up the phone. At least for Young/Murray the Spurs could fit in as a third team. There's nothing the Jazz have that would be interesting to me, and Mark's salary is so small that a third team isn't likely to change that.

The team shouldn't entertain taking calls from Utah (outside of potentially making a move up from 10 during the draft) until the deadline. The Spurs should absolutely wait to see if their core is in a position for this type of deal rather than trying to force it. That same logic is true for teams like Atlanta and Cleveland who fans insist need to get win-now returns for their stars. Teams that are have so much uncertainty with their rosters should let their players settle into position and then react to what they actually have rather than making panic moves.

[pipfan]

I think Lauri to SA or OKC makes SO much sense this month-he'd be a PERFECT fit on their rosters, and both clubs might be able to re-negotiate his deal this summer and lock him up.

I think Lauri for #4, Bulls' pick and '27 ATL pick makes sense for both clubs

[Donuts83]

I'm someone who really doesn't want the Spurs to trade for Mark. Like I'd prefer they not even pick up the phone. At least for Young/Murray the Spurs could fit in as a third team. There's nothing the Jazz have that would be interesting to me, and Mark's salary is so small that a third team isn't likely to change that.

The team shouldn't entertain taking calls from Utah (outside of potentially making a move up from 10 during the draft) until the deadline. The Spurs should absolutely wait to see if their core is in a position for this type of deal rather than trying to force it. That same logic is true for teams like Atlanta and Cleveland who fans insist need to get win-now returns for their stars. Teams that are have so much uncertainty with their rosters should let their players settle into position and then react to what they actually have rather than making panic moves.

agreed

[Astaluego]

Although I love the fit, now is not the time, why rush things?
I think the Spurs are in the phase of building a dynasty or at least trying to, would I choose the prospects with the highest ceiling this Draft (Holland/Dillingham)? even with a great risk of failure and if Wemby agrees, I would even consider sitting him out, the second half of the season facing Draft 25 (something like THUNDER did).. after that, go with everything, with the future selections of the Hawks/Bulls and their own...they are in an unbeatable situation, they just need patience

[7r5ur]

I would want some San Antonio picks as well and what player are we getting? If this is a cap deal then those 3 plus 3 San Antonio picks.

I like Lauri but the #4 pick this year plus 5 other 1st round picks from 2 teams that have been pretty bad lately for an expiring Lauri would be a pretty huge overpay IMO. He's a really nice player, but not some perennial All-NBA guy or something.

Makes more sense for Utah to just renegotiate and extend him and then if you have to you move him in a year or so once he's locked up long term and teams know he'll be sticking around.

[AingesBurner]

I would want some San Antonio picks as well and what player are we getting? If this is a cap deal then those 3 plus 3 San Antonio picks.

I like Lauri but the #4 pick this year plus 5 other 1st round picks from 2 teams that have been pretty bad lately for an expiring Lauri would be a pretty huge overpay IMO. He's a really nice player, but not some perennial All-NBA guy or something.

Makes more sense for Utah to just renegotiate and extend him and then if you have to you move him in a year or so once he's locked up long term and teams know he'll be sticking around.

#4 in a weak draft and what player are we getting back?

[GrowingHorns]

It will cost a lot, 3-4 picks+. High upside talent. Without the said talent 4 picks minimum.

There has been just two players in the NBA history scoring 20+ pog with 80% assisted rate: Karl Malone once and Klay several times (Lauri had it last season, the 22-23 his assisted rate was low 70s, mostly because he wasn't game planned against as much). Lauri's shot release is so fast and he moves so well he doesn't need the ball. He has been operating as #1 option in Jazz and became the best off ball scorer in the league. His guards have been half of a season great, Mike Conley. Other than that,just score first guards and bench tier guards

Now, imagine how much more space hell going to have with Wemby and some competent guard play? He is not a great defender, but neither a walkover line in the start if his career. So,no liability, fits ok to most teams with at least two good defenders. One of the best second scoring options you'll ever going to have