stitches wrote:I'm shocked at how many people continue to want us to spend first round picks for backups... And in the process losing a starter. Conley is not great and has been a disappointment but he is still a better player than Randle. We are over the cap either way... With Randle or with Conley... For us it doesn't matter. Why would we give up picks to get worse players without getting anything else in return? This makes no sense to me.
Who wants to give up a 1st other than the author of the article? There is no way that jazz management as incompetent as they can be at times would give up a 1st for Randle.
I'm not saying that the Randle trade is going to happen or even a legit rumor. However, the Jazz are hogtied if they keep Conley. They could only hope that they could run back the same team- which would require Clarkson and the draft pick to be signed below the tax level, which would mean you're offering Clarkson less than $12M which is probably below his market value.
On the other hand, if the Jazz were presented this trade and went for it, the Jazz would have:
$102M in salary after trade, resulting in:
$7M cap space
$5M room exception
That gives the Jazz nearly $30M to extend Clarkson and improve the bench.
The scenario in the article is not Conley plus 1st for Randle, it is Conley plus 1st for Randle and $16M additional cap space (edit: savings or additional money to upgrade team).
Is the #23 pick in this draft (roundly criticized as being weak) worth the trade offs noted above? What if the Jazz could negotiate a pick swap of #23 and #38? Is the #38 pick that much worse in this year's draft than #23?
Yet another consideration is that once Mitchell is extended, the Jazz are handcuffed again as far as the player signings they could make due to cap implications. Signing players now gives 1-2 additional years of a decent bench.
I'm just throwing out considerations of keeping Conley vs trading him, even if it costs the Jazz a pick.