I like the idea of Gobert, but his production, especially in the Playoffs, is not worth the massive amount of money. Last 2 Playoff series, 12 points, 12 rebounds, and 1 block, and got schemed off the court against the Clippers last year. He could be used better, as Mitchell would hardly pass to him, but that is a LOT of money for someone who isn't stellar in the Playoffs.
What? They would get rid of his contract and get two first-round picks? Portland is the one that should hang up. I would rather spend 40 million on Nurk and a good backup.
S&T Nurkic + EBEC for Gobert [filler as needed]. Since he's not worth the $$$ to Utah and Nurkic will help with scoring, PNR, passing, decent D and Mitchell ... that's why they might trade Gobert. Lillard would work with Gobert to make it work really well ... Nurkic wasn't exactly a projected easy personality fit. Nurkic and Lillard are close, and Nurkic isn't the problem as he's not a forward. So, this isn't a make-this-happen kind of trade. I do prefer the < $18 million centers
No way I trade this years pick for Gobert. However, if you could get him for Nurkic EBEC and maybe the Bucks pick Im down. He would go a long ways towards shoring up the middle with Dame and Simons at the guards. Then we need to draft Banchero or Smith and we suddenly look pretty good. PG Dame/Simons/Keon SG Simons/Hart SF Little/Hart PF 1st round pick/Justise Winslow/GB3 C Gobert/Watford/FA signing if you slot in Banchero or Jabari that team looks amazing starters wise.
Teams have been playing small against the Jazz in the playoffs, forcing Gobert to come out of the paint and negating his defensive assets. No thanks.
The same could be said if the Blazers traded for 80% of NBA players. The question is giving up salary and young talent put the Blazers in a close position to contend? Would the Blazers be a move or two away from contending? With giving up young draft picks and adding Gobert's massive contract I'd say clearly no the Blazers would be further away from contending either immediately or in the long term.
Yes this has been what 6 years we've seen the Jazz exploited by this strategy? I am continuously arguing with these Gobert supporters about this. You can't build an NBA contender with Gobert as one of your team's two super max players. Now if Gobert could be the 4th or 5th starter that is different and maybe it could work. But its damn near impossible to have multiple other all star level players on an NBA roster when Gobert is making a supermax.
I've been saying that as well there are only 3 high-impact/elite bigs in the NBA: Embiid, Jokic, & Giannis. AD isn't high-impact anymore because he can't stay healthy. And Giannis plays more like a wing than he does a big (and when AD is healthy he plays a lot like a wing as well) it's really difficult to build a contender around a C in the modern NBA. Denver probably has the best C in the league and they are looking like a perpetual pretender. Yeah, injuries are a part of it, but not all, and the Nuggets have to start worrying about Jokic leaving next summer. Meanwhile, Philly has spent 3 straight years in the luxury tax so they'll pay repeater tax next season if they don't cut Green and maneuver around in the vet minimum market Utah has a big problem that Portland has had (and may still have): too much of their payroll, talent, and usage invested in small guards and a C. Not enough in wings. It's an imbalance fatal to being a contender. It's a reason I'm hoping Portland doesn't spend more than 40M/year on Simons and Nurkic. It should be less but that might be a pipe dream look at the last 10 NBA champions: the only one that had a core including a traditional big was the Spurs with Duncan. And he was an all-time great. You don't need to invest that much payroll in the C position to be a contender. When you do, it takes all the air out of the room that's needed for wings to sail
Just watching the game tonight reminded me how good Cam Johnson is. Yet Phoenix only can find 24 minutes a game for him. Would people trade a # 6 pick for him?
