Staff Debate: The Gobert trade was better for the Utah Jazz

Now that both Rudy Gobert and Donovan Mitchell have been traded, the Utah Jazz can now start their rebuild. But which trade was better? I think the answer is clearly the Gobert trade. The Gobert deal netted the team a historic haul for a player who, while still very valuable, had clear limitations. He also had four years and $102 million remaining on his contract, which made him overpaid.

Utah Jazz: It’s hard to beat a historical haul of picks

The fact that Danny Ainge and the rest of the Utah Jazz front office got the Minnesota Timberwolves to pony up as much as they did is highway robbery and will continue to benefit the team going forward. To be clear, the Utah Jazz got a great haul for Mitchell, but it seems that they may have turned down a better proposal from the New York Knicks to take the Cleveland Cavaliers’ offer.

Is Collin Sexton better than RJ Barett in the long term? Maybe not, but he was the centerpiece of the Cavs’ offer, along with, of course, three unprotected future firsts and two pick swaps. Those are valuable assets. However, a team can really only use but so many picks, and the Jazz got plenty from offloading Gobert.

The Gobert trade is the gift that keeps giving for the Utah Jazz

Apart from the four future first-round picks, one pick swap, and two recent players selected in the first round, the Jazz also received Patrick Beverly, who they later flipped for Talen Horton-Tucker. Horton-Tucker is a capable young player who better fits the team’s timeline and is further proof that the Gobert deal will be one that continues to pay dividends for the Jazz.

In addition to helping the team going forward, moving Gobert immediately took the Jazz out of title contention. That’s normally not a good thing, but the 2023 NBA Draft is absolutely loaded and is headlined by 7’4 center Victor Wembanyama. The Mitchell trade also made the Jazz worse, but the Gobert trade forced the team to pick a direction, and once he was gone, it was only a matter of time before Mitchell was next.

Gobert was also harder to move considering he makes $38 million next season, $8 million more than Mitchell, and he’s 30 whereas Mitchell’s 26. Finding a taker wasn’t a given, especially with how much they’d have to give up to match salaries, but Minnesota was apparently that desperate. I argue that the Mitchell trade was closer to fair value for a three-time All-Star, based on the Dejounte Murray trade from earlier this summer.

Mitchell is better than Murray, and the Jazz received three additional assets as a result. Meanwhile, the Timberwolves hustled backward by overpaying for a player who had less future value. No one believes that Gobert’s best basketball is ahead of him, yet the value that the Jazz received for him seemed to indicate otherwise.

Additionally, who gives up four future first-round picks, two pick swaps, and three valuable or potentially valuable players, anyway? Minnesota already had an All-Star center but acquired Gobert, which ensures that they’ll play an outdated two-big-man lineup for the next few seasons.

The fact that the Jazz asked for so much from a team that technically didn’t need Gobert and they still got everything they wanted is impressive, to say the least. It also proves that the Gobert trade was better for the Jazz than the Mitchell deal.