RealGM

Assuming the lottery went the way of the percentages and nothing changed, would you do this trade? (MN #2, DET #7, NYK #9, CHA #16, UTH #23)

MN: OUT- Jefferson, Gomes, CHA 1st, UTH 1st
IN- Kirilenko, Wilcox, NYK 1st, DET 1st

DET: OUT- Prince, Wilcox, DET 1st
IN- Jefferson

UTH: OUT- Kirilenko, NYK 1st
IN- Prince, Gomes, CHA 1st, UTH 1st

As a Wolves fan I'd be open to also using Pekovic, Sessions, Ellington, and Hollins to make this deal happen. Would you?

Yes, but UTA gets shortchanged in my opinion.

I'd be interested depending on who was available at #7 and #9. I don't see the incentive for Utah though. One year of Prince for Kirilenko/Gomes seems like a lateral move. Then trading back doesn't make a lot of sense for them since they already have good depth.

I agree Utah may need more. I disagree that Utah has good depth. In fact, I believe they will be easily beat by Denver, another team with poor depth, because of this lack of depth. I also think Detroit may need more. This may be a better balanced version of the deal.

MN: OUT- Jefferson, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st, UTH 1st
IN- Kirilenko, Wilcox, Price, NYK 1st, DET 1st

DET: OUT- Prince, Wilcox, DET 1st
IN- Jefferson, UTH 1st

UTH: OUT- Kirilenko, Price, NYK 1st
IN- Prince, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st

Danimals wrote:I agree Utah may need more. I disagree that Utah has good depth. In fact, I believe they will be easily beat by Denver, another team with poor depth, because of this lack of depth. I also think Detroit may need more. This may be a better balanced version of the deal.

MN: OUT- Jefferson, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st, UTH 1st
IN- Kirilenko, Wilcox, Price, NYK 1st, DET 1st

DET: OUT- Prince, Wilcox, DET 1st
IN- Jefferson, UTH 1st

UTH: OUT- Kirilenko, Price, NYK 1st
IN- Prince, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st

Easy for you to say after they suffer injuries to two of their top 6. That would cripple any playoff team.

I would do it i reckon, if we could then move up to grab favours with the detroit and new york pick that would be sweet

Krapinsky wrote:I'd be interested depending on who was available at #7 and #9. I don't see the incentive for Utah though. One year of Prince for Kirilenko/Gomes seems like a lateral move. Then trading back doesn't make a lot of sense for them since they already have good depth.

They get about $6 mil in cap space in the original deal, which may allow them to keep Boozer. LoserX seems to be OK with it for Utah:

loserX wrote: I don't mind it at all for Utah, it gets a lot of things done (defensive wing, combo forward, cash savings). However, I do agree with Warspite that things may change depending on what happens with Boozer...and we likely won't know that until well after the draft.

it would be tough to give up al, and I am usually against trading proven talent for picks...but the value seems reasonable from the wolves side, and there could be some intriguing players available 7-9 (AFA, Wesley Johnson, Ed Davis, Cole Aldrich, Greg Monroe...). I'd do this deal.

Casperkid23 wrote:Yes, but UTA gets shortchanged in my opinion.

This brings up a good point. Does it annoy anybody else when people abbreviate Utah as UTH? It's UTA.

I don't see how Utah gets short changed. If they resign Boozer they'll be in the lux again and being able to cut Gomes would save them a bit of money, something they've shown they want to do. On top of that with 2 later picks they could spend one on a euro to save some cash too, so it's good financially for them atleast.

I could get behind it for Minnesota. There's some talent at 7 and 9 and walking away with, say, Turner, Johnson and Davis would be an awesome haul. But the team would have to be damn sure they want Love as the full time starter and I'm not sure they're ready to make that decision yet.

2nd deal is worse IMO.

As for moving up to get Favors, I'm not so sure. Obviously he's a top prospect in this draft and I can't see a lot of people being willing to trade him unless they're scared of how raw he is, but even if given the chance it'd be hard to turn down the opportunity to fill as many holes in the roster as we would with 2, 7 and 9.

shrink wrote:

Krapinsky wrote:I'd be interested depending on who was available at #7 and #9. I don't see the incentive for Utah though. One year of Prince for Kirilenko/Gomes seems like a lateral move. Then trading back doesn't make a lot of sense for them since they already have good depth.

They get about $6 mil in cap space in the original deal, which may allow them to keep Boozer. LoserX seems to be OK with it for Utah:

loserX wrote: I don't mind it at all for Utah, it gets a lot of things done (defensive wing, combo forward, cash savings). However, I do agree with Warspite that things may change depending on what happens with Boozer...and we likely won't know that until well after the draft.

Good enough for me. I too, would be interested in trading up for Favors. At 7 and 9 I would hope for Johnson and Udoh. If we landed at #3 or 4 and were already locked into a big man, then this deal looks less appealing.

I think if UTA signs Boozer they would think about doing it.... They basically gave away Eric Maynor and Ronnie Brewer to save money so unless there is someone at #9 that they absolutely want I think it would be really close to a fair deal for them.

If UTA feels they need more and if we know we could use #7 + #9 to get Favors then I would be ok with adding Pek to UTA (going off the original trade).

I'd be kinda scared, I think Turner/Wall/Aminu/Cousins/Favors/Aldrich are all potentially off the board by 7, and I'm personally not confident about guys like Johnson. Not even Favors for that matter, but I kinda assume everybody else knows what they're talking about an I follow them on Favors. If we're getting 2 guys I'm kinda indifferent to at that point like Johnson and Monroe or something, I'd feel apprehensive to say the least, but on paper it seems like a decent enough idea.

It'd also be another rebuild of sorts to trade Jefferson for rookies, can we withstand another move backwards even if it helps us in the long run?

Krapinsky wrote:

Danimals wrote:I agree Utah may need more. I disagree that Utah has good depth. In fact, I believe they will be easily beat by Denver, another team with poor depth, because of this lack of depth. I also think Detroit may need more. This may be a better balanced version of the deal.

MN: OUT- Jefferson, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st, UTH 1st
IN- Kirilenko, Wilcox, Price, NYK 1st, DET 1st

DET: OUT- Prince, Wilcox, DET 1st
IN- Jefferson, UTH 1st

UTH: OUT- Kirilenko, Price, NYK 1st
IN- Prince, Gomes, Sessions, CHA 1st

Easy for you to say after they suffer injuries to two of their top 6. That would cripple any playoff team.

I know this is easy to say now, but I've seen Utah's depth as suspect all season. They have had no one reliable behind Williams since the trade with OKC, no one behind Kirilenko since the trade with Memphis, and they haven't had anyone behind Okur as long as he has been in Utah. In fact, they only have depth at PF, and they won't if they lose Boozer.

casey wrote:

Casperkid23 wrote:Yes, but UTA gets shortchanged in my opinion.

This brings up a good point. Does it annoy anybody else when people abbreviate Utah as UTH? It's UTA.

I apologize for my lack of abbreviation skill. I will work hard this offseason to improve.


My goals in this trade were to: move players to teams who would value them more; respect that Utah is in win now and save money now mode; Det is win soon, desperately needs a low post player, and also wants to save some money; and MN is re...building, so we can trade proven talent for picks and take on contracts (as long as they expire after next season). I would hope to package 7 and 9 with something to move up and grab Favors as well.

I only saw Johnson once, but I thought he looked pretty good. He has such a nice looking shot, and he's got good shooting numbers to back it up. It would be nice if he had a little bit more history with those type of numbers. His athleticism and size also look good.

casey wrote:

Casperkid23 wrote:Yes, but UTA gets shortchanged in my opinion.

This brings up a good point. Does it annoy anybody else when people abbreviate Utah as UTH? It's UTA.

Lol. It's such a time saver too! That pesky extra letter just takes too damn long to type.

not trying to be a dick but everybody knows uta is short for unresolved transition array

There's no abbreviation for Utah because only non team players try to abbreviate 4 letter 2 syllable words. Next time you think about abbreviating Utah ask yourself "do I want to be known as a renegade playing by his own set of rules?"

I always thought the correct abbreviation for Utah was LDS.

I thought it was LSD...

How else do you explain why there is Jazz playing in Salt Lake City???