RealGM

The Spurs plan to draft Harper and realize that the long-term effects of the Fox trade don't benefit them as much with Harper/Castle in the fold. Lauri is a really cool fit with Wemby and doesn't bump anyone of real importance out of rotation minutes.
The Jazz get a more dynamic and clearly better player to build around, of the same age as Markkanen with a more proven track record. The downside is he needs a new contract.

I reject the premise that Fox is better than Lauri. But even so, you said right up front that he needs a new contract. The flight risk defeats the purpose for Utah. If they move Lauri it won’t be for an expiring “star” that probably wouldn’t want to stay.

I think it's a 3-teamer, but Lauri is too polarizing to inject intrigue into future proposals for him

Also, the reason the Jazz would probably want to trade Lauri is because his age doesn't fit the timeline of all of their young guys. So why bring in a flight risk guard who also won't fit the timeline? No reason for the Jazz to be involved unless you're interested in keeping Fox and dealing #2 for Lauri and picks.

We aren't trading Lauri for Fox. If a third team wants to send something for Fox maybe it is workable.

Yeah, definitely need a third team.

I seem to be in the minority that Lauri still holds decent value. And would think one year of Fox, and the lost ability to easily renegotiate and extend him, drops his value pretty decently. Minor but yeah.

All else aside, no way Fox is signing in Utah.

While I think the Spurs would have really considered a Mark trade this summer had they not traded for Fox, I don't think they intend to trade DAF at this point. He WANTED to be in SA, which matters for a team that may well have to rely on attracting a star free agent in the intermediate future. They aren't trading him away unless he wants to be dealt.

Moreover, this trade requires that Castle and/or Harper are ready to be the main perimeter players on a win-now team. I don't think they should be thought of as that yet. Yes, Paul can maybe come back and help. But it almost feels like you're breaking Fox into pieces. Instead of having a vet PG who can drive, dish and score and an All-Star level. You have a vet PG who has HoF-level intelligence to know exactly how to leverage the defense to get good shots for himself and his teammates and two young PGs who have the athleticism to drive, dish and score but who don't have much experience.

I'm not against it, especially if there is some word that Fox wants out. No reason to let that linger. But I've never been a gigantic Mark fan, and I'd try to see if there is a better option before committing to him.

Issue for Utah is while I think they should try to start winning, it seems like that shouldn't come via trading Markkanen. Like if they want to add Fox to him, that could make sense. He's far better than the options they currently have. Maybe as part of a larger deal where they take Fox, the Spurs get some target from team X and team X gets assets from Utah, it could make sense for them. But I don't know if just trading one mid-star for another really does much for them. It's not like they're slated to get a star forward with the fifth pick.

Chinook wrote:While I think the Spurs would have really considered a Mark trade this summer had they not traded for Fox, I don't think they intend to trade DAF at this point. He WANTED to be in SA, which matters for a team that may well have to rely on attracting a star free agent in the intermediate future. They aren't trading him away unless he wants to be dealt.

Moreover, this trade requires that Castle and/or Harper are ready to be the main perimeter players on a win-now team. I don't think they should be thought of as that yet. Yes, Paul can maybe come back and help. But it almost feels like you're breaking Fox into pieces. Instead of having a vet PG who can drive, dish and score and an All-Star level. You have a vet PG who has HoF-level intelligence and two rookie PGs who have the altheticism to drive, dish and score but who don't have much experience.

I'm not against it, especially if there is some word that Fox wants out. No reason to let that linger. But I've never been a gigantic Mark fan, and I'd try to see if there is a better option before committing to him.

Issue for Utah is while I think they should try to start winning, it seems like that shouldn't come via trading Markanen. Like if they want to add Fox to him, that could make sense. He's far better than the options they currently have. Maybe as part of a larger deal where they take Fox, the Spurs get some target from team X and team X gets assets from Utah, it could make sense for them. But I don't know if just trading one mid-star for another really does much for them. It's not like they're slated to get a star forward with the fifth pick.

I agree with the bolded. It's a key reason why the Jazz shouldn't move Lauri. He's a (secondary) star who WANTS to stay there.

For the underlined I actually like Collins as fit for the Spurs. San Antonio could recoup draft assets in dealing Fox, but it would have to be to a place where he would be willing to resign. Not convinced that's Utah, but maybe a three-way deal?

Dead in the water IMO. Fox is worth more than Lauri, but Jazz shouldn’t give up more because no way Fox is willing to stay there.

SkyHook wrote:

Chinook wrote:While I think the Spurs would have really considered a Mark trade this summer had they not traded for Fox, I don't think they intend to trade DAF at this point. He WANTED to be in SA, which matters for a team that may well have to rely on attracting a star free agent in the intermediate future. They aren't trading him away unless he wants to be dealt.

Moreover, this trade requires that Castle and/or Harper are ready to be the main perimeter players on a win-now team. I don't think they should be thought of as that yet. Yes, Paul can maybe come back and help. But it almost feels like you're breaking Fox into pieces. Instead of having a vet PG who can drive, dish and score and an All-Star level. You have a vet PG who has HoF-level intelligence and two rookie PGs who have the altheticism to drive, dish and score but who don't have much experience.

I'm not against it, especially if there is some word that Fox wants out. No reason to let that linger. But I've never been a gigantic Mark fan, and I'd try to see if there is a better option before committing to him.

Issue for Utah is while I think they should try to start winning, it seems like that shouldn't come via trading Markanen. Like if they want to add Fox to him, that could make sense. He's far better than the options they currently have. Maybe as part of a larger deal where they take Fox, the Spurs get some target from team X and team X gets assets from Utah, it could make sense for them. But I don't know if just trading one mid-star for another really does much for them. It's not like they're slated to get a star forward with the fifth pick.

I agree with the bolded. It's a key reason why the Jazz shouldn't move Lauri. He's a (secondary) star who WANTS to stay there.

For the underlined I actually like Collins as fit for the Spurs. San Antonio could recoup draft assets in dealing Fox, but it would have to be to a place where he would be willing to resign. Not convinced that's Utah, but maybe a three-way deal?

I think after being in Sacramento and San Antonio, Fox is probably not adverse to being in a place like SLC. Assuming a scenario where Fox asks out of SA because of Harper being drafted, I think what would matter most to him is a) Will he get the ball, meaning will he be the unquestioned lead guard for the team and b) Will the Jazz put together a winning team around him? So if the Jazz were willing to find a third guy to put with Fox and Markkanen and fill the roster with serious players, I think he'd re-sign. If the Jazz draft their own young PG at five and warn him he's going to be sitting out any time he gets a hangnail, I think he'd want to move on.

Utah's shown some flashes of being a pretty good team over the past couple of years. I don't see why they couldn't challenge for a playoff spot if they committed to a win-now posture. But Ainge certainly complicates things.

Chinook wrote:While I think the Spurs would have really considered a Mark trade this summer had they not traded for Fox, I don't think they intend to trade DAF at this point. He WANTED to be in SA, which matters for a team that may well have to rely on attracting a star free agent in the intermediate future. They aren't trading him away unless he wants to be dealt.

/thread
Anyone who thinks Spurs would unilaterally trade Fox to Siberia (sorry SLC, that's what you are right now in basketball terms) after he forced his way in, doesn't understand the Spurs at all.

What about Lauri to SAS, Fox to Dallas, Kyrie + picks to Utah?

bkohler wrote:What about Lauri to SAS, Fox to Dallas, Kyrie + picks to Utah?

Dallas doesn't have the picks and SA should be getting paid to turn Fox into Mark or at least have it be neutral.

Chinook wrote:

bkohler wrote:What about Lauri to SAS, Fox to Dallas, Kyrie + picks to Utah?

Dallas doesn't have the picks and SA should be getting paid to turn Fox into Mark or at least have it be neutral.

Ummm... it's neutral for SA, right?

SkyHook wrote:

Chinook wrote:

bkohler wrote:What about Lauri to SAS, Fox to Dallas, Kyrie + picks to Utah?

Dallas doesn't have the picks and SA should be getting paid to turn Fox into Mark or at least have it be neutral.

Ummm... it's neutral for SA, right?

Yep… plus Dallas has some picks. Say they sent Gafford to LAL as part of it and Utah got LAL 29, DAL 31 and LAL 31?

bkohler wrote:

SkyHook wrote:

Chinook wrote:
Dallas doesn't have the picks and SA should be getting paid to turn Fox into Mark or at least have it be neutral.

Ummm... it's neutral for SA, right?

Yep… plus Dallas has some picks. Say they sent Gafford to LAL as part of it and Utah got LAL 29, DAL 31 and LAL 31?

With the projection that Kyrie returns before the ASB, I expect that the Mavs see him as having more value than this.

Fox to the Nets for picks. No Lauri in SAS.

Yeah, they might but also he’ll be 34 coming off an ACL injury. He could just as easily be a negative contract if he doesn’t return to form and opts in. Assuming he’ll take the one year buyout from Utah and sign one last deal during the offseason he could always return to Dallas then. Idk, I think they’d need to consider it at least. Fox, Klay, Flagg and AD, Lively should be in the mix now and you’re not wasting one of ADs prime years. I could see them wanting to add a Klay for Sexton swap.