Walker for Mitchell

[babyjax13]

I'd rather keep Mitchell. I think moving him to point guard will help his advanced metrics a lot, he's an excellent (I think, underrated) player who is playing out of position. The Brown+Smart proposal is more interesting, I think maybe too much value coming our way, but not at all interested in Kemba in a trade where we send out Mitchell.

I agree that a move to PG will help. Or even just someone that can defend 2s, even if Mitchell is still listed in the lineup as the SG.

Since we're talking about a Boston/Utah deal, I think Smart would be a great backcourt mate for Mitchell. Not sure I see a match between the two teams on a deal, but maybe some sort of 3-way deal could be worked out. Scenario I envision would be if Utah decides to send Gobert somewhere ahead of free agency and then redirect some of the return to Boston for Smart.

I would LOVE Smart on our team, and I agree with your assessment that it would need to be some kind of three-way <maybe with Bojan+24 going out from us>. I like him even with Rudy. As an alternative, Kris Dunn or Nate Hinton (in the draft) would be nice targets.

Mitchell really thrived as the offensive initiator when Conley was out, and it also gave Joe Ingles more freedom to have the ball, which is always a good thing.

[hugepatsfan]

Eh, maybe value wise but I don't think it does roster wise on either side.

Utah has a bunch of complimentary players but not anyone who can really lead an offense in the face of that type of defensive pressure. That's not Brown's game. Sure, he scores 20 per game, but Tatum/Kemba are more primary scorers and even though Hayward scores less per game he has more responsibility overall (i.e. playmaking) and gets more defensive focus than Brown.

On the other side, Mitchell is an undersized two that wouldn't pair well on defense with Kemba. His skill set as a primary scorer is less featured alongside Tatum/Kemba as well.

If Utah is for whatever reason committed to moving Mitchell then Brown would be a good talent coming back and they can sort it out later. But IDK why Utah would want to do that and even if they moved him I imagine it would be with the intention of staying a strong competitor. In that case, Brown's not a good fit. I think they could get better.

That would be Utah’s gamble, no? That Brown could turn into that guy? And Boston’s gamble would be that Mitchell reverts defensively when he’s not the first second and third option? After all, Mitchell was quite the defender in college and has a ridiculous wingspan.

Personally, I think the trade that makes most sense is Brown+Smart for Mitchell+filler. Utah decides to try to win with defense and hope there is still offensive upside to Brown and Smart. Boston pairs Tatum with a guy he’s great friends with in Mitchell and hopes that Mitchell can grow into a 58-60% TS guy with reduced defensive focus. They also hope his defense returns to its pre-draft level when he is able to give less effort on offense.

The OP idea is getting Celtics a young big 3.

Walker + Smart for Mitchell + Conley

Celtics can still throw in some youth and/or picks.

Jazz are really left with the best team they have had in a very long time.

C: Gobert
F: Bogs
F: Ingles
G: Smart
G: Walker
And Jazz would have assets and moveable parts for a consolidation trade too.

I just don't see the Jazz willing to move Mitchell.

If Boston wants to move Kemba for a young player I think Jamal Murray in Denver is a better bet. Kemba gives them a better perimeter scorer to lead their offense - something they lack. Boston gets back a worse player, but a younger one.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Eh, maybe value wise but I don't think it does roster wise on either side.

Utah has a bunch of complimentary players but not anyone who can really lead an offense in the face of that type of defensive pressure. That's not Brown's game. Sure, he scores 20 per game, but Tatum/Kemba are more primary scorers and even though Hayward scores less per game he has more responsibility overall (i.e. playmaking) and gets more defensive focus than Brown.

On the other side, Mitchell is an undersized two that wouldn't pair well on defense with Kemba. His skill set as a primary scorer is less featured alongside Tatum/Kemba as well.

If Utah is for whatever reason committed to moving Mitchell then Brown would be a good talent coming back and they can sort it out later. But IDK why Utah would want to do that and even if they moved him I imagine it would be with the intention of staying a strong competitor. In that case, Brown's not a good fit. I think they could get better.

That would be Utah’s gamble, no? That Brown could turn into that guy? And Boston’s gamble would be that Mitchell reverts defensively when he’s not the first second and third option? After all, Mitchell was quite the defender in college and has a ridiculous wingspan.

Personally, I think the trade that makes most sense is Brown+Smart for Mitchell+filler. Utah decides to try to win with defense and hope there is still offensive upside to Brown and Smart. Boston pairs Tatum with a guy he’s great friends with in Mitchell and hopes that Mitchell can grow into a 58-60% TS guy with reduced defensive focus. They also hope his defense returns to its pre-draft level when he is able to give less effort on offense.

The OP idea is getting Celtics a young big 3.

Walker + Smart for Mitchell + Conley

Celtics can still throw in some youth and/or picks.

Jazz are really left with the best team they have had in a very long time.

C: Gobert
F: Bogs
F: Ingles
G: Smart
G: Walker
And Jazz would have assets and moveable parts for a consolidation trade too.

I get the idea, I just see Utah telling Boston to kick rocks. If theyre trading a young centerpiece, they’ll want one back. Given that there is some value discrepancy between Brown and Mitchell, Smart makes sense as an additional piece [plus he’s closer with Jaylen] with something small coming back to Boston IMO.

[yahboi617]

Eh, maybe value wise but I don't think it does roster wise on either side.

Utah has a bunch of complimentary players but not anyone who can really lead an offense in the face of that type of defensive pressure. That's not Brown's game. Sure, he scores 20 per game, but Tatum/Kemba are more primary scorers and even though Hayward scores less per game he has more responsibility overall (i.e. playmaking) and gets more defensive focus than Brown.

On the other side, Mitchell is an undersized two that wouldn't pair well on defense with Kemba. His skill set as a primary scorer is less featured alongside Tatum/Kemba as well.

If Utah is for whatever reason committed to moving Mitchell then Brown would be a good talent coming back and they can sort it out later. But IDK why Utah would want to do that and even if they moved him I imagine it would be with the intention of staying a strong competitor. In that case, Brown's not a good fit. I think they could get better.

That would be Utah’s gamble, no? That Brown could turn into that guy? And Boston’s gamble would be that Mitchell reverts defensively when he’s not the first second and third option? After all, Mitchell was quite the defender in college and has a ridiculous wingspan.

Personally, I think the trade that makes most sense is Brown+Smart for Mitchell+filler. Utah decides to try to win with defense and hope there is still offensive upside to Brown and Smart. Boston pairs Tatum with a guy he’s great friends with in Mitchell and hopes that Mitchell can grow into a 58-60% TS guy with reduced defensive focus. They also hope his defense returns to its pre-draft level when he is able to give less effort on offense.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Brown + Smart for Mitchell.

Brown and Smart are Boston's two best defenders, Danny says hell no. Brown is untouchable even for mitchell

[snowman]

I'm pretty sure Boston is not going to trade Kimba after 1 year. No other FA's would EVER sign here.

[HotelVitale]

Walker would have easily 5+ years.

I want to make sure you didn't mistype and mean could and not would? Could he? Sure. Will he? I don't see how we can say that. Small guards tend to age out faster than any other group. That said I think age is an overrated reason in deciding whether or not to make a trade. The idea that Mitchell is going to be part of Utah's core for the next 7-8 years seems pretty unlikely considering how few players stay with one team that long and he's clearly not a franchise level player at this point and I'm struggling to see a path to that for him.

Walker has been in the league 9 seasons and has been extremely healthy. Both of which bode well for him not aging out anytime soon. Meaning, he hasn’t been in league since he was 19 (21yo rookie) and his resiliency has been amazing — small guard or not. Although Walker is not at Paul’s level, Paul having amazing bounce back year at 34 and also being still in his prime during his 29/30/31 year old seasons, is a great example for Walker to follow (although I am sure you or someone can find fall off the cliff example too).

Rugby, you're talking yourself into a position you can't actually believe in, and for no real reason. It is extraordinarily obvious that a small guard who relies on speed/quickness is going to be less valuable if he's over 30, health/peak athleticism gets riskier for every day he's into his 30s. The fact that you're lifting up Chris Paul is an obvious example why: he missed 20+ games the last three seasons before this one, and he missed the last two playoff games for his team--by far the most crucial games of the whole season--in 2016 and 2018, when he was 30 and 32. This year is a surprise, him beating the odds or bouncing back (as you said); why in the world would you want to trade for an aging PG who has to beat the odds and 'bounce back' to stay healthy and kicking in the next 5 seasons, instead of a young wing who's going to be in his prime for at least another 6-7 years? Why take a guy who has any chance of falling off a cliff (without even debating if it's 25% or 40% or whatver) over someone who we would all be surprised if he ISN'T healthy for most of the next 5+ years? No one is actually leaning that way, I don't see why you'd try to talk anyone into it.

[Catchall]

Jazz aren't going to trade Mitchell to Boston. They think Mitchell can hit Dame level in a few years. They'd want Tatum in the deal to even have an academic discussion.

Thanks.

[rugbyrugger23]

I want to make sure you didn't mistype and mean could and not would? Could he? Sure. Will he? I don't see how we can say that. Small guards tend to age out faster than any other group. That said I think age is an overrated reason in deciding whether or not to make a trade. The idea that Mitchell is going to be part of Utah's core for the next 7-8 years seems pretty unlikely considering how few players stay with one team that long and he's clearly not a franchise level player at this point and I'm struggling to see a path to that for him.

Walker has been in the league 9 seasons and has been extremely healthy. Both of which bode well for him not aging out anytime soon. Meaning, he hasn’t been in league since he was 19 (21yo rookie) and his resiliency has been amazing — small guard or not. Although Walker is not at Paul’s level, Paul having amazing bounce back year at 34 and also being still in his prime during his 29/30/31 year old seasons, is a great example for Walker to follow (although I am sure you or someone can find fall off the cliff example too).

Rugby, you're talking yourself into a position you can't actually believe in, and for no real reason. It is extraordinarily obvious that a small guard who relies on speed/quickness is going to be less valuable if he's over 30, health/peak athleticism gets riskier for every day he's into his 30s. The fact that you're lifting up Chris Paul is an obvious example why: he missed 20+ games the last three seasons before this one, and he missed the last two playoff games for his team--by far the most crucial games of the whole season--in 2016 and 2018, when he was 30 and 32. This year is a surprise, him beating the odds or bouncing back (as you said); why in the world would you want to trade for an aging PG who has to beat the odds and 'bounce back' to stay healthy and kicking in the next 5 seasons, instead of a young wing who's going to be in his prime for at least another 6-7 years? Why take a guy who has any chance of falling off a cliff (without even debating if it's 25% or 40% or whatver) over someone who we would all be surprised if he ISN'T healthy for most of the next 5+ years? No one is actually leaning that way, I don't see why you'd try to talk anyone into it.

No actually I know just what I am doing. Unlike you (I assume) I don’t use age as some arbitrary number to determine stage in performance career arc.

And as porter above, I don’t think a shining example back and forth is worth anyone’s time.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Not going to lie, I think Mitchell is overrated. However, moving him for a 30 year old PG in Kemba would be one of the dumbest moves in a while. No way Utah should even consider that.

Nail on the head. Agree with this 100%

[hugepatsfan]

Walker has been in the league 9 seasons and has been extremely healthy. Both of which bode well for him not aging out anytime soon. Meaning, he hasn’t been in league since he was 19 (21yo rookie) and his resiliency has been amazing — small guard or not. Although Walker is not at Paul’s level, Paul having amazing bounce back year at 34 and also being still in his prime during his 29/30/31 year old seasons, is a great example for Walker to follow (although I am sure you or someone can find fall off the cliff example too).

Rugby, you're talking yourself into a position you can't actually believe in, and for no real reason. It is extraordinarily obvious that a small guard who relies on speed/quickness is going to be less valuable if he's over 30, health/peak athleticism gets riskier for every day he's into his 30s. The fact that you're lifting up Chris Paul is an obvious example why: he missed 20+ games the last three seasons before this one, and he missed the last two playoff games for his team--by far the most crucial games of the whole season--in 2016 and 2018, when he was 30 and 32. This year is a surprise, him beating the odds or bouncing back (as you said); why in the world would you want to trade for an aging PG who has to beat the odds and 'bounce back' to stay healthy and kicking in the next 5 seasons, instead of a young wing who's going to be in his prime for at least another 6-7 years? Why take a guy who has any chance of falling off a cliff (without even debating if it's 25% or 40% or whatver) over someone who we would all be surprised if he ISN'T healthy for most of the next 5+ years? No one is actually leaning that way, I don't see why you'd try to talk anyone into it.

No actually I know just what I am doing. Unlike you (I assume) I don’t use age as some arbitrary number to determine stage in performance career arc.

And as porter above, I don’t think a shining example back and forth is worth anyone’s time.

I don’t think anyone is trying to say that it’s impossible that Kemba ages well. It just doesn’t make sense to take that gamble with a player as valuable as Mitchell.

It’s not necessarily a bad idea to trade a younger guy with his prime ahead of him for an older guy. But if you do that, you’re probably hoping that older guy brings you a substantial upgrade in the immediate future. I actually think Kemba’s shooting and ability to function as the point guard rather than shooting guard make him a better player right now. However, it’s not like that’s a substantial upgrade and many wouldn’t even agree with me it’s a marginal upgrade at all. It’s just an awful decision to trade away Mitchell at such a young age for an (arguably) slightly better player who’s older.

[SmartWentCrazy]

Jazz aren't going to trade Mitchell to Boston. They think Mitchell can hit Dame level in a few years. They'd want Tatum in the deal to even have an academic discussion.

Thanks.

Why would Boston offer a substantially better player that plays a substantially more valuable position in a deal for Mitchell?

[rugbyrugger23]

Rugby, you're talking yourself into a position you can't actually believe in, and for no real reason. It is extraordinarily obvious that a small guard who relies on speed/quickness is going to be less valuable if he's over 30, health/peak athleticism gets riskier for every day he's into his 30s. The fact that you're lifting up Chris Paul is an obvious example why: he missed 20+ games the last three seasons before this one, and he missed the last two playoff games for his team--by far the most crucial games of the whole season--in 2016 and 2018, when he was 30 and 32. This year is a surprise, him beating the odds or bouncing back (as you said); why in the world would you want to trade for an aging PG who has to beat the odds and 'bounce back' to stay healthy and kicking in the next 5 seasons, instead of a young wing who's going to be in his prime for at least another 6-7 years? Why take a guy who has any chance of falling off a cliff (without even debating if it's 25% or 40% or whatver) over someone who we would all be surprised if he ISN'T healthy for most of the next 5+ years? No one is actually leaning that way, I don't see why you'd try to talk anyone into it.

No actually I know just what I am doing. Unlike you (I assume) I don’t use age as some arbitrary number to determine stage in performance career arc.

And as porter above, I don’t think a shining example back and forth is worth anyone’s time.

I don’t think anyone is trying to say that it’s impossible that Kemba ages well. It just doesn’t make sense to take that gamble with a player as valuable as Mitchell.

It’s not necessarily a bad idea to trade a younger guy with his prime ahead of him for an older guy. But if you do that, you’re probably hoping that older guy brings you a substantial upgrade in the immediate future. I actually think Kemba’s shooting and ability to function as the point guard rather than shooting guard make him a better player right now. However, it’s not like that’s a substantial upgrade and many wouldn’t even agree with me it’s a marginal upgrade at all. It’s just an awful decision to trade away Mitchell at such a young age for an (arguably) slightly better player who’s older.

And that is a completely different take than your first post. One worth a discussion and what has consisted of this thread.

[hugepatsfan]

No actually I know just what I am doing. Unlike you (I assume) I don’t use age as some arbitrary number to determine stage in performance career arc.

And as porter above, I don’t think a shining example back and forth is worth anyone’s time.

I don’t think anyone is trying to say that it’s impossible that Kemba ages well. It just doesn’t make sense to take that gamble with a player as valuable as Mitchell.

It’s not necessarily a bad idea to trade a younger guy with his prime ahead of him for an older guy. But if you do that, you’re probably hoping that older guy brings you a substantial upgrade in the immediate future. I actually think Kemba’s shooting and ability to function as the point guard rather than shooting guard make him a better player right now. However, it’s not like that’s a substantial upgrade and many wouldn’t even agree with me it’s a marginal upgrade at all. It’s just an awful decision to trade away Mitchell at such a young age for an (arguably) slightly better player who’s older.

And that is a completely different take than your first post. One worth a discussion and what has consisted of this thread.

It's not a different take at all. My first post called it an awful decision and so did this latest one. Trading a young Mitchell for an older player is a fine discussion to have if the older player represents a significant upgrade. That's trading long term value for short term gain, which is a balancing act and always a discussion to have. But Kemba is only marginally better than Mitchell and some would argue worse. So you're trading long term value for short term sameness. It's an awful decision.

[HotelVitale]

Rugby, you're talking yourself into a position you can't actually believe in, and for no real reason. It is extraordinarily obvious that a small guard who relies on speed/quickness is going to be less valuable if he's over 30, health/peak athleticism gets riskier for every day he's into his 30s. The fact that you're lifting up Chris Paul is an obvious example why: he missed 20+ games the last three seasons before this one, and he missed the last two playoff games for his team--by far the most crucial games of the whole season--in 2016 and 2018, when he was 30 and 32. This year is a surprise, him beating the odds or bouncing back (as you said); why in the world would you want to trade for an aging PG who has to beat the odds and 'bounce back' to stay healthy and kicking in the next 5 seasons, instead of a young wing who's going to be in his prime for at least another 6-7 years? Why take a guy who has any chance of falling off a cliff (without even debating if it's 25% or 40% or whatver) over someone who we would all be surprised if he ISN'T healthy for most of the next 5+ years? No one is actually leaning that way, I don't see why you'd try to talk anyone into it.

No actually I know just what I am doing. Unlike you (I assume) I don’t use age as some arbitrary number to determine stage in performance career arc. And as porter above, I don’t think a shining example back and forth is worth anyone’s time.

Well, the 'shining example' you're attributing to me was your example of a successfully aging small point, who in fact had missed a ton of time starting after he turned 30. In any case, the real reason we don't need to trade examples is because the overall numbers are obvious: small guards who are over 30 decline at a much higher rate than athletic wings who are 22. Your examples would be the minority, the other side the majority.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to let you know that this argument/premise is going to work for anyone.

[enzino]

I am sure this has been discussed before, but who adds value and why or why not???

Celtics Trade:
Walker
Langford
#17 (2020 Memphis FRP)

FOR

Mitchell
Conley
Jazz Trade:

C's say no way