Jordan Clarkson?

#1
"Following the departure of Donovan Mitchell, many around the league are anticipating the Jazz looking to move Jordan Clarkson, Bojan Bogdanovic and/or Mike Conley before the trade deadline. Clarkson has generated the most interest thus far with the Memphis Grizzlies, Milwaukee Bucks, Sacramento Kings and Toronto Raptors said to be teams with initial interest following Rudy Gobert’s departure earlier this offseason, sources told Fastbreak."

-via Brett Siegel at Sports Illustrated
 
Last edited:
#2
I'm not really sure how this would work. Clarkson just turned 30 and he's got 2 seasons on his contract. This would certainly be in line with the 'win-now' and adding more firepower type moves.

Looking at possibilities in the trade machine:

-Davion Mitchell and Terrence Davis?
-Holmes and some 2nd rd picks?
-Barnes for Clarkson and Vanderbilt?

Not sure about these... ehhh
 
Last edited:

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#4
I'm not really sure how this would work. Clarkson just turned 30 and he's got 2 seasons on his contract. This would certainly be in line with the 'win-now' and adding more firepower type moves.

Looking at possibilities in the trade machine:

-Davion Mitchell and Terrence Davis?
-Holmes and some 2nd rd picks?
-Barnes for Clarkson and Vanderbilt?

Not sure about these... ehhh
Yeah, I don't get it. Clarkson isn't cheap, and our backcourt is pretty full as is. I can't imagine Davion going out in a deal for a non-defender like Clarkson at all. Holmes is currently more valuable to us from a positional point of view than Clarkson would be. Barnes is super valuable for a playoff push this year. I suppose that if we really wanted to clear out some roster spots we could send TD and Lyles and Len, but that would just mean sacrificing bigs off the bench for a redundant guard shooter. So...why? Agent blowing smoke, most likely?
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#5
Yeah, I don't get it. Clarkson isn't cheap, and our backcourt is pretty full as is. I can't imagine Davion going out in a deal for a non-defender like Clarkson at all. Holmes is currently more valuable to us from a positional point of view than Clarkson would be. Barnes is super valuable for a playoff push this year. I suppose that if we really wanted to clear out some roster spots we could send TD and Lyles and Len, but that would just mean sacrificing bigs off the bench for a redundant guard shooter. So...why? Agent blowing smoke, most likely?
I would say that a lot of these leaks tend to not make any distinctions between primary trade teams and third teams. If the Kings get in on a Clarkson trade, I wonder if it would be as a facilitator more than anything else.
 
#6
Yeah I don't get this at all. He doesn't really fill any a need for us at this point, and while he's a bucket getter he's not a great three point shooter. I don't believe we can trade a future first for him given the Huerter deal, so it would seem like the only thing of potentially similar value on our roster that would fit Utah's objective would be Mitchell. That would be a big no from me.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#7
Clarkson shot 42% from the floor and 32% from 3 last year……like, he wasn’t really good. Not good on D. I think every guard and wing on our roster would be better than him. Not sure what Davion’s stats were but he can defend. This has to be agents talking
 
#8
The above quote says we were among the teams initially interested when Gobert was traded. That happened right around the time Monk was signed. That probably put an end to any interest
 
#14
Why?

Just curious, because they both are pretty good "chemistry" players. The value on paper might not be there, but I don't think they would make us lose anymore than we are doing now. Others that said no to this chime in as well. I am just curious. We had a playoff team on paper when we had Cousins here. Lakers had a playoff team on paper as well. They had 3 of the top 10 players in the league and still finished below .500. When does looking at players simply on paper fail you?
 
#15
It's not even their value on paper. It's the price tag to get them.

I'm not a huge Barnes fan, but he's a better player than Bogdanovic and just over three years younger. They're fairly similar offensively (Barnes shoots a better percentage from three but on lower volume) while Barnes is significantly better defensively. They're both UFAs after this season.

But let's call that a wash. Then you're essentially trading Davion Mitchell, Richaun Holmes and a first round pick for Lauri Markkanen who wouldn't start if Bogdanovic and Murray are the forwards in the starting five.

So you'd get an upgrade in your off the bench stretch 4 in going from Lyles to Markkanen but significant downgrade at backup center and PG where you go from Holmes to Alex Len and from Mitchell to Dellavadova. And you give up yet another 1st rounder to do it.

I'm not even sure why anyone would think that would improve the team.
 
Last edited:
#16
It's not even their value on paper. It's the price tag to get them.

I'm not a huge Barnes fan, but he's a better player than Bogdanovic and just over three years younger. They're fairly similar offensively (Barnes shoots a better percentage from three but on lower volume) while Barnes is significantly better defensively. They're both UFAs after this season.

But let's call that a wash. Then you're essentially trading Donovan Mitchell, Richaun Holmes and a first round pick for Lauri Markkanen who wouldn't start if Bogdanovic and Murray are the forwards in the starting five.

So you'd get an upgrade in your off the bench stretch 4 in going from Lyles to Markkanen but significant downgrade at backup center and PG where you go from Holmes to Alex Len and from Mitchell to Dellavadova. And you give up yet another 1st rounder to do it.

I'm not even sure why anyone would think that would improve the team.
*Davion
 
#17
Why?

Just curious, because they both are pretty good "chemistry" players. The value on paper might not be there, but I don't think they would make us lose anymore than we are doing now. Others that said no to this chime in as well. I am just curious. We had a playoff team on paper when we had Cousins here. Lakers had a playoff team on paper as well. They had 3 of the top 10 players in the league and still finished below .500. When does looking at players simply on paper fail you?
You basically shot yourself in the foot with the "on paper playoff team" argument. But yeah, trading DAVION Mitchell with this package is absolutely shooting yourself in the foot, with this current Kings roster. There is no lacking of shooting, so trading away defensive role players for more shooting role players is just, well how shall I put it, the reverse of what Rob Pelinka is doing right now in LA but pretty much the same fools errand.

I guess if you need an argument about it to understand, you can't just load up on players that all do the same thing and expect it to mesh well.

There is only 1 basketball. Find players who know how to Share the different roles around damn thing.
 
Last edited:
#18
Yep. In my defense I was just watching Richard Jefferson on ESPN talk about how great the Cavs were going to be with Donovan Mitchell. I absolutely love Evan Mobley and I like Garland and Allen as well as their veteran bench, but I'm not sold on that backcourt yet.

Having two somewhat undersized scoring guards with suspect defense (Mitchell especially) doesn't seem ideal to me.
 
#19
Yep. In my defense I was just watching Richard Jefferson on ESPN talk about how great the Cavs were going to be with Donovan Mitchell. I absolutely love Evan Mobley and I like Garland and Allen as well as their veteran bench, but I'm not sold on that backcourt yet.

Having two somewhat undersized scoring guards with suspect defense (Mitchell especially) doesn't seem ideal to me.
You aint lying. QFT
 
#21
On the one hand, that’s all it took to get Bojan?

on the other hand, that’s all anyone was willing to offer for him?
I don't really understand this deal at all for the Jazz unless they were trying to do right by Bojan and put him in a good situation.

Utah gets no picks, Lee hasn't shown much of anything, and Olynyk is what he is. It's not even a good financial deal as Bogdanovic is a FA after the season and Olynyk has another year on his deal that is partially guaranteed for $3M while Lee has a team option for around $2M.

Good move for this Pistons though as they get some solid bench shooting and cap relief for essentially nothing.
 
#22
I don't really understand this deal at all for the Jazz unless they were trying to do right by Bojan and put him in a good situation.

Utah gets no picks, Lee hasn't shown much of anything, and Olynyk is what he is. It's not even a good financial deal as Bogdanovic is a FA after the season and Olynyk has another year on his deal that is partially guaranteed for $3M while Lee has a team option for around $2M.

Good move for this Pistons though as they get some solid bench shooting and cap relief for essentially nothing.
Utah is all in on the tank, whatever they got in return for a player like Bojan doesn't seem important considering they got plenty of draft picks for Rudy and Donovan
 
#24
I don't really understand this deal at all for the Jazz unless they were trying to do right by Bojan and put him in a good situation.

Utah gets no picks, Lee hasn't shown much of anything, and Olynyk is what he is. It's not even a good financial deal as Bogdanovic is a FA after the season and Olynyk has another year on his deal that is partially guaranteed for $3M while Lee has a team option for around $2M.

Good move for this Pistons though as they get some solid bench shooting and cap relief for essentially nothing.
They got a starting SF for a back up big man even if it's only for one year, King should have been all over this if they were serious about a playoff run. I would have given Holmes + whatever salary to make it work. I prefer Bogdanovic over Barnes as well but that's just me.
 
#25
They got a starting SF for a back up big man even if it's only for one year, King should have been all over this if they were serious about a playoff run. I would have given Holmes + whatever salary to make it work. I prefer Bogdanovic over Barnes as well but that's just me.
Bogdanovic may be a SLIGHTLY better facilitator/creator, but shoots a worse percentage from 3, cant penetrate or get his own shot like barnes can, and is a significantly worse defender. AND he is 3 years older on a similar contract (meaning instead of keeping an asset in Holmes, you lose BOTH your SFs (Barnes and Bojan) next year). So maybe you are deeper on the SF front, but Bogdanovic is NOT the difference maker on a team like the kings who need wing defense rather than offense. With Barnes, Monk, Huerter, Murray, and even Lyles, they have enough shooting (especially if Davion continued his improvement from the end of last season).
 
#27
Bogdanovic may be a SLIGHTLY better facilitator/creator, but shoots a worse percentage from 3, cant penetrate or get his own shot like barnes can, and is a significantly worse defender. AND he is 3 years older on a similar contract (meaning instead of keeping an asset in Holmes, you lose BOTH your SFs (Barnes and Bojan) next year). So maybe you are deeper on the SF front, but Bogdanovic is NOT the difference maker on a team like the kings who need wing defense rather than offense. With Barnes, Monk, Huerter, Murray, and even Lyles, they have enough shooting (especially if Davion continued his improvement from the end of last season).
Yes he is, a starting SF who can stretch the floor and good size, Holmes is not an asset (can't even play next to Sabonis most likely) he's a decent player who is not the different between making the playoffs or not Bogdanovic is. A SF/PF rotation Boganovic/Barnes/Murray can compete with anyone who cares if it's 1 year rental the Kings have a core you need above average vets to compliment even if only for 1 season. Now instead the Kings will be playing the likes of Metu/Lyles/KZ/Bazemore at SF/PF instead.

You can find undersized hustle big's anywhere you can't find a 6'8/6'9 wing who can score in a lot of ways and has high IQ and experience. This is a massive miss.
 
#30

man, if I were Ainge, I’d probably still have taken the Lakers move. The Jazz pretty much got nothing of worth back in the Detroit deal.
I misunderstood that story when it was first rumored and thought it was the Jazz that were avoiding salary. Afterall they're sending the player here. That doesn't make sense because they aren't going to spend for a few years would be my guess so who cares. It makes more sense from the Lakers if they were going to send Russ and then the Jazz had to send more matching money, then of course they would clear their books. Otherwise what else isn't being reported here?