RealGM

Utah out: Markkanen, #5, #21, and a 2nd
Utah in: Johnson, Barnes, #2, and #11

San Antonio out: Johnson, Barnes, #2, and #14
San Antonio in: Markannen and #5

Portland out: #11
Portland in: #14, #21, and a Utah 2nd

Why for Utah: Full tilt to the rebuild

Why for San Antonio: They get a star to pair with Wemby and Fox

Why for Portland: Drop back a few spots but they get a few whack in the draft

I think the value is fine but San Antonio has the assets to make a good offer without the second pick and they will just make that offer or tell us to take a hike if we insist on swapping 5 for 2.

Portland is here to give Utah more value?

Lauri Markkanen is probably too volatile to accurately gauge value.

#5, #21, 2027 1st (2nd Best of UTA/MIN/CLE/LAL) is where Utah should start. A separate discussion around Lauri Markkanen can then take place.

Oh, San Antonio likes Lauri Markkanen, maybe they offer #14 and salary, in a separate deal.

I think Lauri + 5 for fillers + 2 is more than fair alrdy. Utah dont deserve a 21 for 11 swap as well

AingesBurner wrote:Utah out: Markkanen, #5, #21, and a 2nd
Utah in: Johnson, Barnes, #2, and #11

San Antonio out: Johnson, Barnes, #2, and #14
San Antonio in: Markannen and #5

Portland out: #11
Portland in: #14, #21, and a Utah 2nd

Why for Utah: Full tilt to the rebuild

Why for San Antonio: They get a star to pair with Wemby and Fox

Why for Portland: Drop back a few spots but they get a few whack in the draft

For Portland, I'd do this if my 2 primary targets are already gone by #11.

There's no chance in hell that I'd agree to this trade if I'm the Spurs.... This is abysmal IMO.

If I can move back and still get the guy I want then sure. I think Bulls and Hawks have different enough goals that they might not be targeting who I am targeting but I would be a bit worried about Utah taking a similar player that I have in mind.

So Utah would have to be transparent about their selection at 11 and I would have to feel confident about Bulls/Hawks leaning a different direction.

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:If I can move back and still get the guy I want then sure. I think Bulls and Hawks have different enough goals that they might not be targeting who I am targeting but I would be a bit worried about Utah taking a similar player that I have in mind.

So Utah would have to be transparent about their selection at 11 and I would have to feel confident about Bulls/Hawks leaning a different direction.

So you want to move down 3 spots, get compensated for moving down, but take no risk and sacrifice nothing in moving down?

At least he rationale about moving down, there needs to be risk, otherwise there is no compensation.

Spurs aren't trading #2 to get Lauri lol. Lauri probably has negative value right now on that contract.

The Blazers here are irrelevant, Spurs never do this deal... adding 14 on top is wild. If Spurs want Markkanen, they make a deal that doesn't include 2. And I don't know that they want him at all at his contract.

Godaddycurse wrote:I think Lauri + 5 for fillers + 2 is more than fair alrdy. Utah dont deserve a 21 for 11 swap as well

It’s definitely not unless one of those fillers is Castle.

I would rather have Harper than Lauri and whoever is there at 5. Lauri's value peaked last offseason. That contract and down season depresses his value imo

wemby wrote:The Blazers here are irrelevant, Spurs never do this deal... adding 14 on top is wild. If Spurs want Markkanen, they make a deal that doesn't include 2. And I don't know that they want him at all at his contract.

It’s really not. Known for unknown. Adding 14 is necessary because Lauri and #5 has more value then #2 and the bad contracts that San Antonio would send.

AingesBurner wrote:

Godaddycurse wrote:I think Lauri + 5 for fillers + 2 is more than fair alrdy. Utah dont deserve a 21 for 11 swap as well

It’s definitely not unless one of those fillers is Castle.

I think with this disconnect on Lauri's value you should work out a trade with just picks

AingesBurner wrote:Adding 14 is necessary because Lauri and #5 has more value then #2

This is where you are completely off-base.
Lauri is at best a neutral asset right now... Most likely he's a negative asset on his current contract.

I think the deal would be filler, 14, 2027 ATL 1st for Lauri if San Antonio is interested, and I would do that if we don't have a clearly better deal (and Utah may need to send back our worst 2027 1st not conveyed to Phoenix).

ReggiesKnicks wrote:Portland is here to give Utah more value?

Lauri Markkanen is probably too volatile to accurately gauge value.

#5, #21, 2027 1st (2nd Best of UTA/MIN/CLE/LAL) is where Utah should start. A separate discussion around Lauri Markkanen can then take place.

Oh, San Antonio likes Lauri Markkanen, maybe they offer #14 and salary, in a separate deal.

Truer words were never spoke on this board. (And the Spurs may like Lauri for #14 + salary, but I don't see the Jazz moving him for that.)

The bottom line for me though is this: I'm staunchly opposed to moving up for #2 to draft a player (the only one worth taking there) who doesn't want to be in Utah.

AingesBurner wrote:

wemby wrote:The Blazers here are irrelevant, Spurs never do this deal... adding 14 on top is wild. If Spurs want Markkanen, they make a deal that doesn't include 2. And I don't know that they want him at all at his contract.

It’s really not. Known for unknown. Adding 14 is necessary because Lauri and #5 has more value then #2 and the bad contracts that San Antonio would send.

Yeah, right. I'm sure the Jazz phone is ringing off the hook with the Spurs call pushing for this trade.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:If I can move back and still get the guy I want then sure. I think Bulls and Hawks have different enough goals that they might not be targeting who I am targeting but I would be a bit worried about Utah taking a similar player that I have in mind.

So Utah would have to be transparent about their selection at 11 and I would have to feel confident about Bulls/Hawks leaning a different direction.

So you want to move down 3 spots, get compensated for moving down, but take no risk and sacrifice nothing in moving down?

At least he rationale about moving down, there needs to be risk, otherwise there is no compensation.

I didn't propose the deal, I stated the conditions necessary for Portland to accept, not sure why you are phrasing this like I'm trying to cheat the other teams here. We aren't going to trade down and watch our favorite prospect go to another team, a late first rounder isn't worth losing the guy at the top of our board. We are still going to want someone we like at 14 and it isn't crazy to say so. This is only necessary if Utah is worried about Bulls or Hawks taking the guy they want, if that isn't the situation then of course Portland has no place here.

Anyways looks like the deal falls apart long before it gets to that stage of consideration.

tester551 wrote:

AingesBurner wrote:Adding 14 is necessary because Lauri and #5 has more value then #2

This is where you are completely off-base.
Lauri is at best a neutral asset right now... Most likely he's a negative asset on his current contract.

Yeah, this is horrible for the Spurs. Lauri is one of the worst contracts in the league and I often question if he even has positive value. He may be a decent fit next to Wemby, so maybe they value him more than most would, but that still doesn’t mean he jumps you from 5 to Harper at 2.

Lauri makes way too much money for the role he'd play on the Spurs. Mediocre defense at best, injury prone.

I think this is a no for the Spurs before you get to the value added here.