Utah Jazz Trade Guard Donovan Mitchell to the Cleveland Cavaliers

[J-ALL-DAY]

18 hours ago, seminoles1 said:

Yup. The Knicks with Mitchell are definitely worse than the Cavs with Mitchell. The picks likely will be worse than what they would have gotten.

But this is why I'm not sure why some think the Jazz got the better of the deal or straight up robbed the Cavs as mentioned earlier in this thread. Having control of the Cavs draft for the next five years is good and all, but this team is going to have around 50-54 wins for the foreseeable future. If Mobley ends up being what most think he can be, then this team is going to be a title contender and a consistent top 3-4 seed for a while. How exactly did the Cavs get fleeced here or even lose the trade? They got by far the best player in the deal while giving up mainly picks in the 20s and Sexton. The rest of the pieces are just okay but it's the picks and Sexton. Not saying the Jazz did bad here but I don't think they won the trade either. Mitchell with the Knicks is a borderline playoff team. Those picks would have been much more valuable and then I would have agreed that the Jazz did very well and may have even won the trade without getting back the best player in the deal. That's not the case with this deal. 

[redsoxsuck05]

4 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

But this is why I'm not sure why some think the Jazz got the better of the deal or straight up robbed the Cavs as mentioned earlier in this thread. Having control of the Cavs draft for the next five years is good and all, but this team is going to have around 50-54 wins for the foreseeable future. If Mobley ends up being what most think he can be, then this team is going to be a title contender and a consistent top 3-4 seed for a while. How exactly did the Cavs get fleeced here or even lose the trade? They got by far the best player in the deal while giving up mainly picks in the 20s and Sexton. The rest of the pieces are just okay but it's the picks and Sexton. Not saying the Jazz did bad here but I don't think they won the trade either. Mitchell with the Knicks is a borderline playoff team. Those picks would have been much more valuable and then I would have agreed that the Jazz did very well and may have even won the trade without getting back the best player in the deal. That's not the case with this deal. 

Tbh the return for the Jazz is kinda trash. Even hardcore Knicks fans, who rightly believe that everything we do is trash, seem mostly relieved the Jazz rejected our offer and saved us from ourselves.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

Tbh the return for the Jazz is kinda trash. Even hardcore Knicks fans, who rightly believe that everything we do is trash, seem mostly relieved the Jazz rejected our offer and saved us from ourselves.

That's because Knicks' fans didn't want to be bidding themselves.  They were more concerned with landing that next start than actually landing Mitchell.

[redsoxsuck05]

13 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's because Knicks' fans didn't want to be bidding themselves.  They were more concerned with landing that next start than actually landing Mitchell.

This team with Donovan Mitchell would have been an Amar'e/Melo redux. Our fans just want a couple years of relevance so badly, and I can't blame anyone who only has those 3 years to cling to.

It's not like the Knicks without Mitchell are being run all that well, but maybe one day they'll actually use some of those draft picks instead of trading them for protected future picks!

Edited September 4, 2022 by redsoxsuck05

[Sad People]

22 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

But this is why I'm not sure why some think the Jazz got the better of the deal or straight up robbed the Cavs as mentioned earlier in this thread. Having control of the Cavs draft for the next five years is good and all, but this team is going to have around 50-54 wins for the foreseeable future. If Mobley ends up being what most think he can be, then this team is going to be a title contender and a consistent top 3-4 seed for a while. How exactly did the Cavs get fleeced here or even lose the trade? They got by far the best player in the deal while giving up mainly picks in the 20s and Sexton. The rest of the pieces are just okay but it's the picks and Sexton. Not saying the Jazz did bad here but I don't think they won the trade either. Mitchell with the Knicks is a borderline playoff team. Those picks would have been much more valuable and then I would have agreed that the Jazz did very well and may have even won the trade without getting back the best player in the deal. That's not the case with this deal. 

Thats why I dont think the Gobert trade is as bad as people are making it out to be, Yeah we gave up a lot but if things work out the way the Wolves hope it works out those picks will be in the late 20s.

Seems pretty rare that a pick in the late 20s turns into anything more than a role player

[sdrawkcab321]

1 hour ago, mattyice0401 said:

Thats why I dont think the Gobert trade is as bad as people are making it out to be, Yeah we gave up a lot but if things work out the way the Wolves hope it works out those picks will be in the late 20s.

Seems pretty rare that a pick in the late 20s turns into anything more than a role player

That trade wasn’t terrible because of the picks. It was garbage because they blew their assets on a 30 year old big who can’t move on the outside and is a liability in the playoffs. And now they have to figure out a 90s twin tower big lineup. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

On 9/4/2022 at 11:12 AM, sdrawkcab321 said:

That trade wasn’t terrible because of the picks. It was garbage because they blew their assets on a 30 year old big who can’t move on the outside and is a liability in the playoffs. And now they have to figure out a 90s twin tower big lineup. 

Right, the issue isn't trading the picks, who cares, the issue is trading the picks and all your depth for Rudy Gobert

[Thelonebillsfan]

I also am of the opinion that the Knicks standing pat was the right move, don't blow your wad on a guy just because he's available, yes the Knicks are desperate for relevance but has ANY history shown that trading all those picks and all that depth for a guy who's never made it out of the 2nd round as an alpha is suddenly going to carry the Knicks into prominence and success?

The assets aren't going anywhere, someone else will come free, there's no reason to panic buy on a very good but not great player and hope you get lucky. If you're gonna gamble, at least go big game hunting.

[redsoxsuck05]

12 hours ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

I also am of the opinion that the Knicks standing pat was the right move, don't blow your wad on a guy just because he's available, yes the Knicks are desperate for relevance but has ANY history shown that trading all those picks and all that depth for a guy who's never made it out of the 2nd round as an alpha is suddenly going to carry the Knicks into prominence and success?

The assets aren't going anywhere, someone else will come free, there's no reason to panic buy on a very good but not great player and hope you get lucky. If you're gonna gamble, at least go big game hunting.

Mitchell on the Knicks would have been doomed to fail, but I'm not all that optimistic about this team with RJ Barrett and Julius Randle making $30M either for the next several years either.
 

At least passing on this trade gives us a chance to get a good pick in 5 years if this current hodgepodge of flawed but talented youngsters doesn't work out.

[BetterCallSaul]

Agreed about the Knicks. While I think Mitchell is a great player, he really doesn't put them in title contention. Until the Knicks can get out from under that Julius Randle contract, I don't think they're going to be a title threat. The Cavs were a much better fit. If Garland continues his ascension into stardom and Mobley becomes what he's looking to become, the Cavs could easily compete for championships.

As much as it sucks for the Knicks, they were best off standing pat and keeping their moveable assets on the roster.

[redsoxsuck05]

22 hours ago, BetterCallSaul said:

Agreed about the Knicks. While I think Mitchell is a great player, he really doesn't put them in title contention. Until the Knicks can get out from under that Julius Randle contract, I don't think they're going to be a title threat. The Cavs were a much better fit. If Garland continues his ascension into stardom and Mobley becomes what he's looking to become, the Cavs could easily compete for championships.

As much as it sucks for the Knicks, they were best off standing pat and keeping their moveable assets on the roster.

My problem with the Knicks is that they keep trading current picks for future picks that are only useful if they're traded for a star player. Eventually you'll have to pick guys and develop them, or you'll always have a bare-bones roster that's perpetually waiting on a star to come in with zero support.

The retort would be, "we have too unproven guys on the roster and not enough minutes." Well maybe guys like Quick and Obi would be more proven if they weren't stuck playing behind bums like Randle, Elfrid Payton, Alec Burks, and Evan Fournier!

Edited September 9, 2022 by redsoxsuck05

[NYRaider]

On 9/3/2022 at 7:36 AM, J-ALL-DAY said:

Mitchell with the Knicks is a borderline playoff team. Those picks would have been much more valuable and then I would have agreed that the Jazz did very well and may have even won the trade without getting back the best player in the deal. That's not the case with this deal. 

I wish we would've accepted the Barrett, Robinson, and picks package in July. 

[NYRaider]

6 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said:

My problem with the Knicks is that they keep trading current picks for future picks that are only useful if they're traded for a star player. Eventually you'll have to pick guys and develop them, or you'll always have a bare-bones roster that's perpetually waiting on a star to come in with zero support.

The retort would be, "we have too unproven guys on the roster and not enough minutes." Well maybe guys like Quick and Obi would be more proven if they weren't stuck playing behind bums like Randle, Elfrid Payton, Alec Burks, and Evan Fournier!

The Knicks blew their load to pay Barrett, Brunson, Randle, and Robinson.

[NYRaider]

On 9/5/2022 at 9:55 PM, Thelonebillsfan said:

I also am of the opinion that the Knicks standing pat was the right move, don't blow your wad on a guy just because he's available, yes the Knicks are desperate for relevance but has ANY history shown that trading all those picks and all that depth for a guy who's never made it out of the 2nd round as an alpha is suddenly going to carry the Knicks into prominence and success?

The assets aren't going anywhere, someone else will come free, there's no reason to panic buy on a very good but not great player and hope you get lucky. If you're gonna gamble, at least go big game hunting.

The issue for the Knicks now becomes that they have $390M invested into 4 players over the next four seasons.

[NYRaider]

On 9/5/2022 at 9:53 PM, Thelonebillsfan said:

Right, the issue isn't trading the picks, who cares, the issue is trading the picks and all your depth for Rudy Gobert

Meh, they traded away three rotational players (Beverly, Beasley, Vanderbilt) and replaced them with Rudy, Kyle Anderson, Austin Rivers, and Bryan Forbes.