RealGM

UTA trades: 5, 21, 2027 1st (second least favorable conveyed of UTA/LAL/MIN/CLE)
CHA trades: 4

I am assuming Philly will draft Bailey because the last thing they need is another guard. Charlotte will be choosing between VJ/Tre. I think both make some sense, but VJ's two-way play makes more sense next to Ball. For Utah, I just want Tre, I think he's the third best prospect in this draft behind Flagg and Harper, and I do think that Charlotte will decide that his ceiling is high enough that at 4 they have to pick him over VJ. Here they move down a spot for the better fit, but also add additional draft capital to take another swing at 21 + a 2027 1st they can use or package in a trade.

babyjax13 wrote:UTA trades: 5, 21, 2027 1st (second least favorable conveyed of UTA/LAL/MIN/CLE)
CHA trades: 4

I am assuming Philly will draft Bailey because the last thing they need is another guard. Charlotte will be choosing between VJ/Tre. I think both make some sense, but VJ's two-way play makes more sense next to Ball. For Utah, I just want Tre, I think he's the third best prospect in this draft behind Flagg and Harper, and I do think that Charlotte will decide that his ceiling is high enough that at 4 they have to pick him over VJ. Here they move down a spot for the better fit, but also add additional draft capital to take another swing at 21 + a 2027 1st they can use or package in a trade.

I'd be fine with any of VJ, Tre, Fears or Kon with the 5th pick, but if the Jazz are set on one in particular this could be something. Would it make more sense to leave the LAL pick out of the "second least favorable" discussion in order to leave it unencumbered so it can be used in another potential transaction?

SkyHook wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:UTA trades: 5, 21, 2027 1st (second least favorable conveyed of UTA/LAL/MIN/CLE)
CHA trades: 4

I am assuming Philly will draft Bailey because the last thing they need is another guard. Charlotte will be choosing between VJ/Tre. I think both make some sense, but VJ's two-way play makes more sense next to Ball. For Utah, I just want Tre, I think he's the third best prospect in this draft behind Flagg and Harper, and I do think that Charlotte will decide that his ceiling is high enough that at 4 they have to pick him over VJ. Here they move down a spot for the better fit, but also add additional draft capital to take another swing at 21 + a 2027 1st they can use or package in a trade.

I'd be fine with any of VJ, Tre, Fears or Kon with the 5th pick, but if the Jazz are set on one in particular this could be something. Would it make more sense to leave the LAL pick out of the "second least favorable" discussion in order to leave it unencumbered so it can be used in another potential transaction?

I think it should either be the LAL pick OR the second least favorable language (if I am understanding you correctly) if what you are concerned about is reducing our tradeable picks by 1. I don't know that we will be in a position to start making big moves until the 2027 offseason so I'd rather just have that guarantee that we have the best, or best two of that group of picks but YMMV.

I definitely like Utah spending some minor assets to ensure they get the guy they want. Charlotte would ask as part of this who are you taking. As long as its not their guy, they take the free value. Utah goes ahead and does the deal knowing that to prevent Charlotte from potentially trading the pick elsewhere.

We saw OKC do this with Dallas recently to ensure they got Cason Wallace. And I don't believe they regret it one bit.

Alternatively Utah can probably offer to eat Green or Grant williams into exception and save a FRP (loop into a boston salary dumping trade maybe)

Godaddycurse wrote:Alternatively Utah can probably offer to eat Green or Grant williams into exception and save a FRP (loop into a boston salary dumping trade maybe)

I'd definitely prefer that if it is available.

If I'm Utah, I'm comfortable at 5 taking whomever is there out of Ace Bailey, Tre Johnson and VJ Edgecombe, but if the price to move up isn't exorbitant, sure, why not. It's the Wizards and Nets who should consider moving up the most IMO.

babyjax13 wrote:

SkyHook wrote:

babyjax13 wrote:UTA trades: 5, 21, 2027 1st (second least favorable conveyed of UTA/LAL/MIN/CLE)
CHA trades: 4

I am assuming Philly will draft Bailey because the last thing they need is another guard. Charlotte will be choosing between VJ/Tre. I think both make some sense, but VJ's two-way play makes more sense next to Ball. For Utah, I just want Tre, I think he's the third best prospect in this draft behind Flagg and Harper, and I do think that Charlotte will decide that his ceiling is high enough that at 4 they have to pick him over VJ. Here they move down a spot for the better fit, but also add additional draft capital to take another swing at 21 + a 2027 1st they can use or package in a trade.

I'd be fine with any of VJ, Tre, Fears or Kon with the 5th pick, but if the Jazz are set on one in particular this could be something. Would it make more sense to leave the LAL pick out of the "second least favorable" discussion in order to leave it unencumbered so it can be used in another potential transaction?

I think it should either be the LAL pick OR the second least favorable language (if I am understanding you correctly) if what you are concerned about is reducing our tradeable picks by 1. I don't know that we will be in a position to start making big moves until the 2027 offseason so I'd rather just have that guarantee that we have the best, or best two of that group of picks but YMMV.

Yes, just thinking for flexibility purposes. If that can be written into the language of the trade in a way that doesn't prohibit moving the Lakers pick, all the better. (It should be advantageous for Charlotte as well.)

Pass for me.