Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 30 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 443
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    8,728
    ^i'd say less. i don't think our fo would consider the king's ransom it would take.
    HAWKS '13 ,'1 4, & '15 PREMIERS


    "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...ffftt ffftt ffftt!"


    "of course tom 'jan' brady would whine about a rule change."
    -chipurmunki


  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth View Post
    I hate to burst your bubble on Ben Simmons but I just don't see how we pull it off. Yeah it would be great but let's think about what it would take. There is no way Dennis will trade both Favors and Hayward for an unproven rookie. Boston is by far the team most likely to trade this pick. The Celtics would have to first get a little lucky and end up with a top 2 pick. If Boston ends up with the #2 pick we need the #1 pick to go for Ingram. Then we need Boston to want Favors. We can't trade Hayward and have Simmons, Favors, and Lyles all at the same position. They need a player like Favors so it's not a huge stretch, but they would have to like Favors over Simmons. We would also need Boston to like Favors more than the other trade options they get. Possibly players like Love or Cousins. Good luck. From a Jazz only perspective this trade sets us back a few years. A surprising move for a team "near the end of the rebuild". There would be some fan backlash for taking a step backwards. Be honest the stars would have to align for this one.

    What am I not seeing? Do you see another way?
    Everyone knows they want Hayward, and they need a PF pretty desperately, so yes. I could totally see Boston trading both of those players for that pick. Why wouldn't Boston do that again? Honestly, looking at it from a Boston stand point trading the number 1 or 2 pick for Hayward, Favors, and a couple first rounders would be a steal for that pick. They get what they want, we get what we want.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,827
    Quote Originally Posted by chipurmunki View Post
    ^i'd say less. i don't think our fo would consider the king's ransom it would take.
    Agreed. I highly doubt they trade Hayward, Favors, and one or more first round draft picks for a rookie at this point. That seems like an awful lot to give up and an awful lot of pressure on the kid we draft. I feel like we would be more likely to sell the farm for a proven player than a draft pick but neither scenario is has a high% of happening.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    720

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Mantooth View Post
    I hate to burst your bubble on Ben Simmons but I just don't see how we pull it off. Yeah it would be great but let's think about what it would take. There is no way Dennis will trade both Favors and Hayward for an unproven rookie. Boston is by far the team most likely to trade this pick. The Celtics would have to first get a little lucky and end up with a top 2 pick. If Boston ends up with the #2 pick we need the #1 pick to go for Ingram. Then we need Boston to want Favors. We can't trade Hayward and have Simmons, Favors, and Lyles all at the same position. They need a player like Favors so it's not a huge stretch, but they would have to like Favors over Simmons. We would also need Boston to like Favors more than the other trade options they get. Possibly players like Love or Cousins. Good luck. From a Jazz only perspective this trade sets us back a few years. A surprising move for a team "near the end of the rebuild". There would be some fan backlash for taking a step backwards. Be honest the stars would have to align for this one.

    What am I not seeing? Do you see another way?
    Good points, and some of the creative solutions could lie in the points that you brought up. No matter how likely or unlikely a situation like this is, that is the fun of this forum in my opinion. Until something can't happen, it's fun to try to come up with ways that it could happen.

    We don't necessarily have to have Boston want Favors more than a player like Love, we would just have to involve more than two teams. Lets get creative with that. It's late, so I'm not going to jump on trade machine right now, but the last time I did I think I remembered that a straight up Favors for Love trade works, and estimates that it actually improves Cleveland by 2 wins. So maybe it plays out that Cleveland falls short of a title, and the friction that has been palpable in Cleveland heats up, and the Cavs decide to move on. They are in win now mode, and didn't want to bite on Boston's trade proposals for Love at the deadline, because they aren't as interested in developing new talent, they want to win now. So now we can get creative, and imagine some sort of package where we send assets to Cleveland and Boston. I'll get on the machine tomorrow maybe, (although it's still probably operating on last season's salary cap numbers) but something based around Favors and/or picks etc. to Cleveland, Love to Boston, Hayward to Boston, the first round pick to the Jazz, maybe Amir Johnson back to the Jazz.

    Look, I don't think it's really that likely, but this is just something I freestyle off the top of my head. Getting creative and bringing in more teams opens up more possibilities to make something happen. I mean in this situation, the team least likely to do the trade is probably the Jazz, who could be better in the long run, but aren't getting enough proven assets back for the core of the team. I personally, am patient, and would be willing to get rid of some guys if we could get a superstar, or shot at one. If you were Boston, and you were just giving up a draft pick and a back up, and you got Kevin Love and Hayward? You would do that yesterday. If Cleveland does decide to move on from Love, they could do worse than Derrick Favors, who the metrics say improves your team trading straight up, a few more assets could make that go down.

    What if you leave Hayward all the way out of it? Could you get creative and find a way to do something where we send Favors and future pick to Cleveland, Love goes to Boston, maybe we send some of our other owed first rounders to Boston, and take back like Amir Johnson an Jonas Jerebko plus the pick? Or just the pick, if that works under the new cap? Would it be more palatable to everybody in this hypothetical trade if we keep Hayward? Boston gets the guy they want plus future picks, Cleveland gets a (by the numbers) upgrade and change of scenery, plus maybe an additional pick, Jazz get the theoretical top 2 pick to take their guy?

    Hey, I'm freestyling, but I'm having fun, so take it all with a grain of salt

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,068
    Quote Originally Posted by ThaBoomer View Post

    I personally, am patient, and would be willing to get rid of some guys if we could get a superstar, or shot at one.

    Hey, I'm freestyling, but I'm having fun, so take it all with a grain of salt
    Excellent stuff Boom. Everything you said was great but this stuff stood out to me. We are in the forum to inform, throw out ideas, enjoy the good times and ***** about the bad ones. Ideas are fun to create and dream about. Some ideas are to stay put and develop. Some ideas are to shoot for the stars. Neither is necessarily right or necessarily wrong. At the end of the day, we don't make the decisions (although I do believe my post was used as a basis for the Jazz Nets Deron trade....).

    There is a glimmer of hope for us to get the best projected prospect in the draft. Hell, he might be one of the best prospects in the last 10 years by some accounts. I am going to hold out hope for the star we so desperately need in Utah.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    8,728
    Wrong thread for spitballing trade ideas. We already have one of those.

    Anyone else surprised by the Pistons?
    HAWKS '13 ,'1 4, & '15 PREMIERS


    "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...ffftt ffftt ffftt!"


    "of course tom 'jan' brady would whine about a rule change."
    -chipurmunki


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,382
    Quote Originally Posted by chipurmunki View Post
    Wrong thread for spitballing trade ideas. We already have one of those.

    Anyone else surprised by the Pistons?
    I think you might be talking about the other thread? This is off-season thread, what else do we talk about for off-season besides trades, draft picks and free agency?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    8,728
    the trade thread.
    HAWKS '13 ,'1 4, & '15 PREMIERS


    "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...ffftt ffftt ffftt!"


    "of course tom 'jan' brady would whine about a rule change."
    -chipurmunki


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    720
    Discussing ideas for offseason trades in the offseason thread is certainly appropriate.

    My post was more of a response to Wes' line of questioning to the ongoing discussion about whether or not there was another way to make the trade, which had been discussed most of the previous two pages, work.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,068
    Quote Originally Posted by chipurmunki View Post
    Wrong thread for spitballing trade ideas. We already have one of those.

    Anyone else surprised by the Pistons?
    This isn't the "postseason for other teams" discussion thread either.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefistus View Post
    Everyone knows they want Hayward, and they need a PF pretty desperately, so yes. I could totally see Boston trading both of those players for that pick. Why wouldn't Boston do that again? Honestly, looking at it from a Boston stand point trading the number 1 or 2 pick for Hayward, Favors, and a couple first rounders would be a steal for that pick. They get what they want, we get what we want.
    I think you missed the point. Of course Boston would do it, Jazz won't. Fans yes, GM no. Right or wrong Jazz won't trade Hayward and Favors for any unproven rookie.

    How far are you willing to go? Are you willing to trade Rudy to get a star? Exum, Hood, Hayward, Simmons, and Favors. Or Exum, Jimmy Butler, Hayward, Lyles, and Favors. Nobody wants to trade Rudy, but are we willing to trade him for a star or is he just too valuable?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    9,068
    If we think that highly of Favors and we like the spacing Lyles provides, then we could trade Gobert and move Favors to C. Offensively, that makes us a tougher team. Defensively, I don't think we are top 5 anymore. Favors can rim protect, but he can't lock down the paint like Gobert.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    8,728
    double post
    Last edited by chipurmunki; 04-23-2016 at 11:29 PM.
    HAWKS '13 ,'1 4, & '15 PREMIERS


    "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...ffftt ffftt ffftt!"


    "of course tom 'jan' brady would whine about a rule change."
    -chipurmunki


  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    8,728
    who the hell needs 3 threads worth of schoolgirl butler pillow-talk? i can go to the damn bulls forum for that. hit him up on bloody tinder for crying out loud.
    HAWKS '13 ,'1 4, & '15 PREMIERS


    "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti...ffftt ffftt ffftt!"


    "of course tom 'jan' brady would whine about a rule change."
    -chipurmunki


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    16,640
    I closed the Trade and the Regular season threads so you guys can avoid confusion, also edited this thread "(Free Agents/Trade Ideas)" to keep this organized.

Page 3 of 30 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •