Danny Ainge just took the whole NBA execs to school

[dc]

Bro, this is like 7 years of unprotected pick control. You really have that much faith that the Cavaliers and the Timberwolves are gonna have sustained success for that long and not hit the bottom once? Chit, i'd be surprised if the Jazz didnt get multiple lotto picks from the Cavs/Wolves

Oh yeah, anything can happen, just as I said in another post in this thread. There's definitely an element of risk in these kinds of trades, no doubt about it. It's just not the same as the trade with the Nets, where everyone basically KNEW the Celts were getting some lotto picks.

That’s funny, cause that’s not at all how it went. Immediately after the trade the nets were the clear winner. Only in the next year did things start falling apart.

Dude, KG was 36/37 (!) when that trade happened. Paul Pierce was 35/36, LOL. Everyone saw from a mile away that the Celtics were going to get lottery picks a few years later.

[seren]

Modern NBA fan: Utah should have traded Stockton and Malone by ‘89 for picks because it was obvious they couldn’t win

Are you trying to compare them 2 with Mitchell and Gobert?

I am trying to compare a mentality. If they couldn’t win in a year or two at most three, time to blow up. Trying to build something is way too tough

[Ruma85]

Modern NBA fan: Utah should have traded Stockton and Malone by ‘89 for picks because it was obvious they couldn’t win

Are you trying to compare them 2 with Mitchell and Gobert?

I am trying to compare a mentality. If they couldn’t win in a year or two at most three, time to blow up. Trying to build something is way too tough

Ok, but they won't going to win with those 2. as there main options.

[BK_2020]

Oh yeah, anything can happen, just as I said in another post in this thread. There's definitely an element of risk in these kinds of trades, no doubt about it. It's just not the same as the trade with the Nets, where everyone basically KNEW the Celts were getting some lotto picks.

That’s funny, cause that’s not at all how it went. Immediately after the trade the nets were the clear winner. Only in the next year did things start falling apart.

Dude, KG was 36/37 (!) when that trade happened. Paul Pierce was 35/36, LOL. Everyone saw from a mile away that the Celtics were going to get lottery picks a few years later.

KG and Pierce were acquired to be role players joining a team that won 49 games then got upset in the 1st round. Even if KG and Pierce sucked, the Nets were expected to be good. No one saw Deron Williams crashing so hard at such a young age.

[TeamTragic]

Maybe KD should take note on this one.

Ainge takes no prisoners

[Dubnation]

Meh. Fleecing teams in trades is just one part of the job description.

[dc]

Modern NBA fan: Utah should have traded Stockton and Malone by ‘89 for picks because it was obvious they couldn’t win

Are you trying to compare them 2 with Mitchell and Gobert?

I am trying to compare a mentality. If they couldn’t win in a year or two at most three, time to blow up. Trying to build something is way too tough

The Jazz got the #1 seed in the West and proceeded to lose to a Clips team that lost Kawhi halfway thru the series and played with a frontcourt of Morris/Batum. That was pretty telling and a lot of people would've just blown up the team right after that.

Jazz ran it back the following year. They got the 5th seed in what was a soft year in the Western Conference and they lost in the 1st round to a Mavs team that didn't have Luka in 2 out of 6 games. I couldn't blame anyone who wanted to blow that team up.

[jswede]

Oh yeah, anything can happen, just as I said in another post in this thread. There's definitely an element of risk in these kinds of trades, no doubt about it. It's just not the same as the trade with the Nets, where everyone basically KNEW the Celts were getting some lotto picks.

That’s funny, cause that’s not at all how it went. Immediately after the trade the nets were the clear winner. Only in the next year did things start falling apart.

Dude, KG was 36/37 (!) when that trade happened. Paul Pierce was 35/36, LOL. Everyone saw from a mile away that the Celtics were going to get lottery picks a few years later.

You are remembering what you want to remember. Here’s the biggest homer on the planet immediately after:

Bill Simmons:
“I thought this was 35 cents on the dollar. There’s no guaranteed any of those picks will get in the lottery. Look at what just happened with Oklahoma City. They thought they were getting this juicy lottery pick and it ended up being No. 12. [The Celtics] are gutting the team, and it’s not like they have salary cap flexibility because [Rajon] Rondo makes big money. Jeff Green and Wallace combined make $20 million next year.”

ESPN:
Then-ESPN Celtics writer Chris Forsberg gave any Nets fans that may have been worried about getting Pierce and Garnett at such an old age assurance that they could still be integral parts to a title team.
“The Nets should be pretty good for the foreseeable future,” Forsberg wrote. “Three guys with rings are a nice return for what could be three late first-round picks — and, hey, if nothing else, Boston took Gerald Wallace’s contract off Brooklyn’s hands. There’s a lot to like in this deal for the Nets, and you’ll especially appreciate what they got when the playoffs roll around.”

Bleacher Report Grades: NETS: A Celtics: B
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687344-celtics-nets-blockbuster-trade-grading-kevin-garnett-paul-pierce-to-brooklyn

[JujitsuFlip]

The amount of respect I have for that franchise, to take a team that was guaranteed to make the playoffs but also guaranteed to never contend, and blow it up is sky high. They could’ve just stayed as a 1st round contender and kept their fan base happy but they aren’t settling.

Writing was on the walk when Ainge was brought in.

[seren]

Are you trying to compare them 2 with Mitchell and Gobert?

I am trying to compare a mentality. If they couldn’t win in a year or two at most three, time to blow up. Trying to build something is way too tough

Ok, but they won't going to win with those 2. as there main options.

Yep. They will surely win with that kid in the 8th grade.

It is really one thing what Ainge did in Boston. Pierce was 36. Garnett was 37. Ray Allen was gone. That was the end of the era.

Compare that to giving up on a 25 year old with a three year contract and a former DPOY who still has many years ahead.

But as I said. Trying is risky. Ainge could have traded picks and expirings to add players and the team could have still failed. This is certainly the easy way out. Nobody will ask him about winning a game yet a championship for many years. Heck they will demand losses

[seren]

Are you trying to compare them 2 with Mitchell and Gobert?

I am trying to compare a mentality. If they couldn’t win in a year or two at most three, time to blow up. Trying to build something is way too tough

The Jazz got the #1 seed in the West and proceeded to lose to a Clips team that lost Kawhi halfway thru the series and played with a frontcourt of Morris/Batum. That was pretty telling and a lot of people would've just blown up the team right after that.

Jazz ran it back the following year. They got the 5th seed in what was a soft year in the Western Conference and they lost in the 1st round to a Mavs team that didn't have Luka in 2 out of 6 games. I couldn't blame anyone who wanted to blow that team up.

As I said, you would also want to trade Stockton and Malone if you were a fan back then. Those two didn’t make the finals until their 30s

[Daddy 801]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The 1996-97 Spurs would like to introduce you to their draft strategy of tanking and getting the #1 pick. They drafted this guy Tim Duncan. He is pretty good.

[QingJames]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The 1996-97 Spurs would like to introduce you to their draft strategy of tanking and getting the #1 pick. They drafted this guy Tim Duncan. He is pretty good.

Strategic tanking for a single year because of an injury to your best player is in no way, shape or form the same as gutting your entire roster for picks and trying to put the worst possible team and product on the floor for 3+ years.

[BK_2020]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The 1996-97 Spurs would like to introduce you to their draft strategy of tanking and getting the #1 pick. They drafted this guy Tim Duncan. He is pretty good.

The Celtics tanked for Duncan and ended up with Billups and Ron Mercer.

[mademan]

Oh yeah, anything can happen, just as I said in another post in this thread. There's definitely an element of risk in these kinds of trades, no doubt about it. It's just not the same as the trade with the Nets, where everyone basically KNEW the Celts were getting some lotto picks.

That’s funny, cause that’s not at all how it went. Immediately after the trade the nets were the clear winner. Only in the next year did things start falling apart.

Dude, KG was 36/37 (!) when that trade happened. Paul Pierce was 35/36, LOL. Everyone saw from a mile away that the Celtics were going to get lottery picks a few years later.

They also had a prime Deron Williams. Most thought that even after KG/Pierce that Williams would keep them from bottoming out. His quick fall off was pretty unforseeable

[seren]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The 1996-97 Spurs would like to introduce you to their draft strategy of tanking and getting the #1 pick. They drafted this guy Tim Duncan. He is pretty good.

Somehow they never considered dumping Robinson for picks. Their GM was obviously short sighted.

[DavidSterned]

Modern NBA fan: Utah should have traded Stockton and Malone by ‘89 for picks because it was obvious they couldn’t win

Stockton and Malone were considerably better than Gobert/Mitchell, so....

[dc]

As I said, you would also want to trade Stockton and Malone if you were a fan back then. Those two didn’t make the finals until their 30s

Mitchell's game not likely to age the way Stockton's did, though in theory Gobert's "could" age well.

The Jazz were only getting worse. Gobert never learned any offensive moves. Ingles was a key role player for them, but he's rehabbing an ACL at age 34. Conley is small, 34 and still making big money. Bogdanovic is 33. They were blowing 4th Q leads left and right last year, despite having a historically good defensive player. In a league dominated by wings, they had the almighty Royce O'neale to defend against them.

They had no assets to make any other moves or even replace their role guys like Conley, Bogdanovic and Ingles in coming years.

[djsunyc]

that's cool. let's revisit this in 5 years and add up the jazz's win totals.

For the next 2-3 years, they want those totals to be as low as possible. That was the entire point of unloading Mitchell before the seasons started. He was going to win them games they didn't want to win.

i know the point buy ultimately its about wins at some point. 5 years from now they better be in the 50 win range otherwise what's the point?

[Daddy 801]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The 1996-97 Spurs would like to introduce you to their draft strategy of tanking and getting the #1 pick. They drafted this guy Tim Duncan. He is pretty good.

Strategic tanking for a single year because of an injury to your best player is in no way, shape or form the same as gutting your entire roster for picks and trying to put the worst possible team and product on the floor for 3+ years.

The Jazz needed to tank. There is 0% chance they could have strategically tanked 1 year. and got a high draft pick. This is the way.