Danny Ainge just took the whole NBA execs to school

[PhilBlackson]

Lol Presti is “ruining the NBA” but Ainge is a genius for trading his stars.

Well I think a lot of that sentiment is based on Presti resting majority of his starters for something like a month on an already bad team and doing some of the most blatant in season tanking we've seen in years. Perhaps the Jazz will do the same but I don't think the compliant is based on having draft picks.

[Exp0sed]

how can you be sure the players you will select with those picks (arguably all late 1st round) will even sniff to be as good as Mitchell and Gobert?

Its not just the picks itself that have massive value because they could be lotto picks, its the ability to trade them. Which every single team in the league will have interest in them. As opposed to just a select few teams that can trade for or even want Gobert/Mitchel.

Cavs and Wolves look like huge losers. They aren't contenders yet mortgaged their future. If their roster doesn't work moving forward, they are in a bad position.

lol, "Cavs mortgaged their future"?

those 3 Cavs picks are probably gonna be in the 15-20 range
The Cavs nailed some high picks lately (Mobley, Garland) but also wasted some high picks (Sexton, Okoro, Bennet, Wiggins etc).
what are the odds of 1 or more players the Cavs would have picked with those 3 picks (plus Ochai) let's say 18th-20th being equal or better to Mitchell?

let's not forget, even if they draft such a player in the 15-20th (very unlikely) - that prospect still needs time to develop - Mitchell is just entering his prime

odds are out of those 3 picks, 2 never stick in the league and the 3rd is a decent starter

Sexton is awful, they weren't gonna pay him and were looking to unload him even before he got injured, in order to get rid of him and give Garland the keys. His injury derailed that...
he was useless to them.
Lauri is ok, serviceable player nothing more nothing less, certainly not a future crippling move haha

those swaps might not convey at all (quite likely)

so..how exactly have they "mortgaged their future"?
are they more or less likely in your opinion after the trade to reach the playoffs sometime in the 3-5 next seasons? how about the 2nd rd? ECF? Finals?

they did a great move for the future even tho personally i'm not a big fan of Domo - he's still a major upgrade for them

[HMFFL]

Yeah the Wolves and Cavs are desperate for relevance and overpaid for it.

Overpaying via trades for what is a star talent (not superstar) has to be done by teams that aren't a desirable location for free agents.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[BenoUdrihFTL]

I'm honestly not getting the hype here. For one thing, it's not exactly difficult to go full-tank and simply fire sell prime allstars for picks and filler with zero concern for team building. Secondly, I have to question the value of these picks he's assembled. Said picks:

2023 Wolves
2025 Wolves
2025 Cavs
2027 Wolves
2027 Cavs
2029 Wolves
2029 Cavs

How many of these can we expect to become actual lottery picks? '27 and '29 Wolves seem to be the best ones here as Gobert will be 34/36 by then and KAT will be 33 in '29. Assuming Utah/Cleveland are both reasonably healthy and retain their core allstar-caliber players, the other 5 picks are looking like late first rounders. The Cavs picks are especially unpromising; years 2025-29 aligns with what figures to be peak and/or prime ages for their "Big 4" core: Mitchell will be 28-32, Allen 26-30, Garland 25-29, Mobley 23-27. All 4 players will be within the ages of 23-32 and within 5 years of eachother at any given point along this 5 year timeline. When you look at the ages of the EC's current top teams Boston/Milwaukee/Philly/Miami/Brooklyn, only Boston has a core (minus Horford and Brogdon) that won't be aging out by 2025. You might include Toronto here with Scottie Barnes and Masai's stewardship although both Siakam and Fred (ages 30-34) will be in the latter stages of their primes while Barnes (23-27) will just be entering his. We could very realistically be looking at Cleveland as a top 2-3 team in the East for the duration of these pick conveyances while Minnesota projects to be competing for 50 wins throughout Gobert's remaining prime (don't forget that for all the questions about Gobert's playoff utility, he's still among the most reliable and consistent high-impact regular season players in the NBA)

So is one or two high-potential lottery picks really all that great of a return for two allstars in their primes?

I suppose Ainge might be banking on history repeating itself in terms of the Wolves and Cavs' poor track records as competent franchises over the years, but talent is talent and it's gonna be a challenge for Minny/Cleveland to somehow screw this up

[Def Leppard]

No, he took one exec to school.

Sent from my SM-G981W using RealGM mobile app

[MoneyTalks41890]

Lol Presti is “ruining the NBA” but Ainge is a genius for trading his stars.

Entirely different situations. One team has languished at the bottom of the standings (and will) for years to come. Ainge's teams have never had a prolonged period of being really bad.

If anyone has an opinion other than "Ainge is a good (or better) GM," then they either don't understand the business of the front office, hate Danny Ainge, or both.

Death, taxes, and being ignorant about OKC’s records

Read on Twitter

?s=21&t=Mea-szA3L_VIyt7cqaMlRw

[hoosierdaddy34]

With all those picks, likelihood Ainge turns the Jazz into being anywhere near as good as the Cavs are?

I put the odds at about 5%.

[Ron Swanson]

The Ainge worship is getting a bit overzealous considering he clearly whiffed by not taking that superior Knicks package as reported, because he was so stubbornly set at his outlandish original asking price. He's been often referred to as "Gun-Shy Danny" for a reason. Honestly think that Sexton and Agbaji are the best assets he got here.

But a lot of people do seem to love these "trade a star for quantity over quality picks" deals that are always lauded as some 4D chess type moves. When in reality I'm pretty sure the teams that "get fleeced" (Bucks, Lakers, Clippers) are pretty fine with the outcome of those trades when they've banked a championship or two. As a Bucks fan, sign me up for getting "fleeced" again if I'm getting another All-Star caliber player to extend our title window....

[NO-KG-AI]

The Ainge worship is getting a bit overzealous considering he clearly whiffed by not taking that superior Knicks package as reported, because he was so stubbornly set at his outlandish original asking price. He's been often referred to as "Gun-Shy Danny" for a reason. Honestly think that Sexton and Agbaji are the best assets he got here.

But a lot of people do seem to love these "trade a star for quantity over quality picks" deals that are always lauded as some 4D chess type moves. When in reality I'm pretty sure the teams that "get fleeced" (Bucks, Lakers, Clippers) are pretty fine with the outcome of those trades when they've banked a championship or two. As a Bucks fan, sign me up for getting "fleeced" again if I'm getting another All-Star caliber player to extend our title window....

People look at it as "getting fleeced" because they can't fathom how a trade can be great for both teams, somebody has to get jeered as a loser.

[DavidSterned]

LOL. If you believe Mitchell and Gobert were 11-12 Bobcats level, I don’t know what to tell you. You need to start watching some games

Just poking holes in your "flawed players can win" logic.

And they weren't even close to championship level either. Like, at all....

What does “at all” mean? There is only one team winning any given year. Was Golden State close to championship level last year? They won it all. Milwaukee the year before. Lakers the year earlier. Toronto before that.

You lose until you win. All those winners in the past, nothing was given. They lost until they won. Jordan was 28 when he won. Curry was 27. Nowitzki was 32. Did Dirk look like he can win until he actually won?

Winning is not guaranteed. If you are a 50+ team every year with a 25 year old leading you, you are closer to winning than a team with no players on the roster. Utah has no players on the roster. They are not close to winning than they were yesterday. They may not be a 50 team for a decade.

Sorry but one-size-fits-all philosophies like this simply don't work if you're not taking respective individual talent levels into account. Literally all of those players listed were quite a bit better than Mitchell or Gobert. They are both flawed talents and at least a tier below franchise player level, with significant fundamental holes in their games. Mitchell is an undersized and below average defender and ballstopper at this point, who has essentially plateaued in his production. Gobert is a well below average offensive player who can also be exploited and effectively game-planned against defensively in the postseason. The two didn't mesh well on or off the court, never really displayed elite potential together, and their returns were already diminishing with last season's extremely poor finish. They lost to a mediocre Dallas team that was missing their best player for half the series.

It seems that you simply value both Gobert and Mitchell as true franchise pillars who are comparable with the ATGs of the past who led championship teams. They are not, and I would imagine the vast majority of fans would concur. The Jazz certainly concurred and decided after 5+ years to pull the plug, realizing that you can't keep building upon a cracked foundation. The assets they have acquired for such a shaky foundation can certainly go a long way, and I think is the sort of swing-for-the-fences move that GMs need to be willing to make once they identify that they've reached their likely ceiling with a flawed core.

[madmaxmedia]

The Ainge worship is getting a bit overzealous considering he clearly whiffed by not taking that superior Knicks package as reported, because he was so stubbornly set at his outlandish original asking price. He's been often referred to as "Gun-Shy Danny" for a reason. Honestly think that Sexton and Agbaji are the best assets he got here.

But a lot of people do seem to love these "trade a star for quantity over quality picks" deals that are always lauded as some 4D chess type moves. When in reality I'm pretty sure the teams that "get fleeced" (Bucks, Lakers, Clippers) are pretty fine with the outcome of those trades when they've banked a championship or two. As a Bucks fan, sign me up for getting "fleeced" again if I'm getting another All-Star caliber player to extend our title window....

People look at it as "getting fleeced" because they can't fathom how a trade can be great for both teams, somebody has to get jeered as a loser.

I thought the Mitchell trade was roughly fair value and the deal terms didn't really surprise me at all. I think people were a lot more surprised at the Gobert deal, given Gobert's age and position. In retrospect perhaps it's not too surprising, because after Gobert was traded the writing was on the wall and teams were trying to get best terms possible for Mitchell.

If you have 2 star/superstar level players in their primes (especially Mitchell who is very young) and trade them both, yeah you're going to get a haul, and Utah came out well in the end. Not sure where any schooling took place though.

A proper schooling would have been if they somehow landed a superstar in the offseason while keeping Mitchell and Gobert.

OKC was ultimately the winner of the best superstar trade, because they leveraged the fact that Clippers needed PG to sign Kawhi. All the picks will end up probably so-so (a combo of Miami and Clipper picks), but they also got SGA in the deal.

[Beethoven]

Picks don't mean nothing

[Almond2Oak]

how can you be sure the players you will select with those picks (arguably all late 1st round) will even sniff to be as good as Mitchell and Gobert?

Its not just the picks itself that have massive value because they could be lotto picks, its the ability to trade them. Which every single team in the league will have interest in them. As opposed to just a select few teams that can trade for or even want Gobert/Mitchel.

Cavs and Wolves look like huge losers. They aren't contenders yet mortgaged their future. If their roster doesn't work moving forward, they are in a bad position.

lol, "Cavs mortgaged their future"?

those 3 Cavs picks are probably gonna be in the 15-20 range
The Cavs nailed some high picks lately (Mobley, Garland) but also wasted some high picks (Sexton, Okoro, Bennet, Wiggins etc).
what are the odds of 1 or more players the Cavs would have picked with those 3 picks (plus Ochai) let's say 18th-20th being equal or better to Mitchell?

let's not forget, even if they draft such a player in the 15-20th (very unlikely) - that prospect still needs time to develop - Mitchell is just entering his prime

odds are out of those 3 picks, 2 never stick in the league and the 3rd is a decent starter

Sexton is awful, they weren't gonna pay him and were looking to unload him even before he got injured, in order to get rid of him and give Garland the keys. His injury derailed that...
he was useless to them.
Lauri is ok, serviceable player nothing more nothing less, certainly not a future crippling move haha

those swaps might not convey at all (quite likely)

so..how exactly have they "mortgaged their future"?
are they more or less likely in your opinion after the trade to reach the playoffs sometime in the 3-5 next seasons? how about the 2nd rd? ECF? Finals?

they did a great move for the future even tho personally i'm not a big fan of Domo - he's still a major upgrade for them

A lot of words for a team that Ainge just took another soul from. Mitchell isn’t staying in Cleveland so all those picks will be gold. Mitchell will be winning games somewhere else why the Cavs are losing

[benson13]

Picks don't mean nothing

Agreed. Draft capital sometimes seems overvalued. I could easily see these picks falling in the mid twenties.

Late first rounders are awful. It's almost identical to drafting an early second rounder without the whole guaranteed salary thing.

[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.

Tanking is tanking. There are different paths/ways to tank. The point is to try and get a high draft pick. The Jazz easily could have missed out on the lottery if they kept Donovan.

It's reported Donovan was going to leave. Ainge had the balls to trade whil the value was high. Danny just bet against Donovan's camp. If he really does want to go to a large market it only helps in 2025 when Donovan's contract expires and the picks and swaps start to convey. Brilliant move.

You act like Ainge doesn't know what he is doing. The team he just built by tanking was in the finals. And who knows what the finals would have looked like if Tatum wasn't injured.

[azcatz11]

What Ainge did any GM could do. Tanking is the easiest thing ever. Now the Jazz are going to suck for the next 3 years in hopes of drafting a blue chip stud to hopefully win them a championship which would take another 3 years (minimum from there)

I guess have fun being a loser for 6 years - just doesn't make any sense to me. To the GM's who do this - it's ultimate job security.

[Exp0sed]

Its not just the picks itself that have massive value because they could be lotto picks, its the ability to trade them. Which every single team in the league will have interest in them. As opposed to just a select few teams that can trade for or even want Gobert/Mitchel.

Cavs and Wolves look like huge losers. They aren't contenders yet mortgaged their future. If their roster doesn't work moving forward, they are in a bad position.

lol, "Cavs mortgaged their future"?

those 3 Cavs picks are probably gonna be in the 15-20 range
The Cavs nailed some high picks lately (Mobley, Garland) but also wasted some high picks (Sexton, Okoro, Bennet, Wiggins etc).
what are the odds of 1 or more players the Cavs would have picked with those 3 picks (plus Ochai) let's say 18th-20th being equal or better to Mitchell?

let's not forget, even if they draft such a player in the 15-20th (very unlikely) - that prospect still needs time to develop - Mitchell is just entering his prime

odds are out of those 3 picks, 2 never stick in the league and the 3rd is a decent starter

Sexton is awful, they weren't gonna pay him and were looking to unload him even before he got injured, in order to get rid of him and give Garland the keys. His injury derailed that...
he was useless to them.
Lauri is ok, serviceable player nothing more nothing less, certainly not a future crippling move haha

those swaps might not convey at all (quite likely)

so..how exactly have they "mortgaged their future"?
are they more or less likely in your opinion after the trade to reach the playoffs sometime in the 3-5 next seasons? how about the 2nd rd? ECF? Finals?

they did a great move for the future even tho personally i'm not a big fan of Domo - he's still a major upgrade for them

A lot of words for a team that Ainge just took another soul from. Mitchell isn’t staying in Cleveland so all those picks will be gold. Mitchell will be winning games somewhere else why the Cavs are losing

Sure he will..he's gonna leave a franchise that's competing for championships (in 3 years time that is) and leave millions on the table (signing without bird rights) to play for..who exactly?
the Knicks? Miami?
lol, the only dude that actually pulled that off was Kawhai

so much $$$ these days for the veterans max contracts, ur scenario is highly unlikely

regardless of Mitchell, they have Garland, Mobley, Jafro most of those locked up for longer than that - they won 44 games last season after half their team was injured and would have won 50 if healthy.

they're not bottoming out either way, with or without Mitchell and as for Mitchell - he's not going anywhere lol

[Mr Loggins]

Its not just the picks itself that have massive value because they could be lotto picks, its the ability to trade them. Which every single team in the league will have interest in them. As opposed to just a select few teams that can trade for or even want Gobert/Mitchel.

Cavs and Wolves look like huge losers. They aren't contenders yet mortgaged their future. If their roster doesn't work moving forward, they are in a bad position.

lol, "Cavs mortgaged their future"?

those 3 Cavs picks are probably gonna be in the 15-20 range
The Cavs nailed some high picks lately (Mobley, Garland) but also wasted some high picks (Sexton, Okoro, Bennet, Wiggins etc).
what are the odds of 1 or more players the Cavs would have picked with those 3 picks (plus Ochai) let's say 18th-20th being equal or better to Mitchell?

let's not forget, even if they draft such a player in the 15-20th (very unlikely) - that prospect still needs time to develop - Mitchell is just entering his prime

odds are out of those 3 picks, 2 never stick in the league and the 3rd is a decent starter

Sexton is awful, they weren't gonna pay him and were looking to unload him even before he got injured, in order to get rid of him and give Garland the keys. His injury derailed that...
he was useless to them.
Lauri is ok, serviceable player nothing more nothing less, certainly not a future crippling move haha

those swaps might not convey at all (quite likely)

so..how exactly have they "mortgaged their future"?
are they more or less likely in your opinion after the trade to reach the playoffs sometime in the 3-5 next seasons? how about the 2nd rd? ECF? Finals?

they did a great move for the future even tho personally i'm not a big fan of Domo - he's still a major upgrade for them

A lot of words for a team that Ainge just took another soul from. Mitchell isn’t staying in Cleveland so all those picks will be gold. Mitchell will be winning games somewhere else why the Cavs are losing

even *if* Mitchell leaves, a big three of Allen, Mobley and Garland will have a pretty healthy win floor. I doubt the locks are going to be lottery

[jswede]

how can you be sure the players you will select with those picks (arguably all late 1st round) will even sniff to be as good as Mitchell and Gobert?

Its not just the picks itself that have massive value because they could be lotto picks, its the ability to trade them. Which every single team in the league will have interest in them. As opposed to just a select few teams that can trade for or even want Gobert/Mitchel.

Cavs and Wolves look like huge losers. They aren't contenders yet mortgaged their future. If their roster doesn't work moving forward, they are in a bad position.

“They aren’t contenders”….?!?!? The Cavs have the best young core in the NBA. They are set to contend for 5-8 years.

[madmaxmedia]

I'm honestly not getting the hype here. For one thing, it's not exactly difficult to go full-tank and simply fire sell prime allstars for picks and filler with zero concern for team building. Secondly, I have to question the value of these picks he's assembled. Said picks:

2023 Wolves
2025 Wolves
2025 Cavs
2027 Wolves
2027 Cavs
2029 Wolves
2029 Cavs

How many of these can we expect to become actual lottery picks? '27 and '29 Wolves seem to be the best ones here as Gobert will be 34/36 by then and KAT will be 33 in '29. Assuming Utah/Cleveland are both reasonably healthy and retain their core allstar-caliber players, the other 5 picks are looking like late first rounders. The Cavs picks are especially unpromising; years 2025-29 aligns with what figures to be peak and/or prime ages for their "Big 4" core: Mitchell will be 28-32, Allen 26-30, Garland 25-29, Mobley 23-27. All 4 players will be within the ages of 23-32 and within 5 years of eachother at any given point along this 5 year timeline. When you look at the ages of the EC's current top teams Boston/Milwaukee/Philly/Miami/Brooklyn, only Boston has a core (minus Horford and Brogdon) that won't be aging out by 2025. You might include Toronto here with Scottie Barnes and Masai's stewardship although both Siakam and Fred (ages 30-34) will be in the latter stages of their primes while Barnes (23-27) will just be entering his. We could very realistically be looking at Cleveland as a top 2-3 team in the East for the duration of these pick conveyances while Minnesota projects to be competing for 50 wins throughout Gobert's remaining prime (don't forget that for all the questions about Gobert's playoff utility, he's still among the most reliable and consistent high-impact regular season players in the NBA)

So is one or two high-potential lottery picks really all that great of a return for two allstars in their primes?

I suppose Ainge might be banking on history repeating itself in terms of the Wolves and Cavs' poor track records as competent franchises over the years, but talent is talent and it's gonna be a challenge for Minny/Cleveland to somehow screw this up

Any schooling by the Jazz was done by their FO when they drafted Gobert (27th pick) and Mitchell (13th pick).