Utah Jazz mailbag: Trading Mike Conley for Al Horford and discussing the best use of the MLE

Philadelphia 76ers’ Al Horford (42) shoots against the Houston Rockets during the second half of an NBA basketball game Friday, Aug. 14, 2020, in Lake Buena Vista, Fla. | Ashley Landis, AP

SALT LAKE CITY — When I put out the call for mailbag questions the majority of the responses come from social media and more often than not there’s a theme to that week’s mailbag, like draft prospects, or free agents that fans are interested in.

This week, I combed through my email and picked out some of the offseason-related questions that have been coming in over the last couple months. So without further adieu:

Scott G Winterton, Deseret News

Q: It doesn’t appear to be any secret that PHI thinks Horford is a bad fit. It also seems that UTA believe Mitchell is capable and ready of playing PG on this team. PHI would love to have a shooting PG to play beside Simmons (similar to Redick) and UTA should want to improve their size with a player who is a threat from both inside and outside. It seems a Horford/Conley trade might be a win/win. Any merit to this trade or is it a dumb idea for either team so there is no chance for it to happen? — Joe

A: On the surface, as far as talent is concerned, this seems like it could work for both teams. Joe is right that a stretch four type player who has a perimeter game is something that the Jazz could use and Al Horford fits that bill. Philadelphia is certainly always on the hunt for reliable shooting considering their roster and Mike Conley coming over on an expiring contract gives them more wiggle room for the future.

The problem that I have with this trade is that it gets messy for the Jazz’s future. Horford is clearly on the tail end of his career, and I don’t really see a reason to have Horford in the starting lineup at this point. So, while they would get a little extra room on the financial side this season, Utah would end up paying $53.5 million over the course of the 2021-22 and 2022-23 seasons for an aging bench player.

Those seasons are going to be critical years that the Jazz will need to maximize their talent to be a contender and having that kind of money wrapped up with a Horford contract doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do. I don’t see the Jazz being interested in this.

Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News

Q: Why are we trying so hard to keep Jordan Clarkson? I get that he played well for the Jazz this season but couldn’t we spend that money on someone who isn’t so ball dominant and iso obsessed? — Jake

A: I understand being a little wary of Jordan Clarkson’s penchant for playing in isolation. There’s a time and place for that kind of basketball and sometimes he gets a little carried away. But there are also times in which Clarkson getting a bucket has swung things back in the right direction for the Jazz.

Here’s the thing; the Jazz can’t spend that money on someone else. They only have that money to spend on Clarkson because they have his Bird rights. They’ll probably be over the cap before even getting to Clarkson so they can’t spend that kind of money elsewhere. Signing Clarkson is a huge priority, because if he walks away the Jazz have nothing to show for it and if he stays the Jazz are basically paying him with free money.

Ashley Landis, AP

Q: What do you think is the Utah Jazz’s best use of the MLE? — Greg

A: How the Jazz end up using the mid-level exception is going to depend on a lot of factors. What happens with the salary cap and how much the MLE is worth will be the first things to figure out. From there it’ll depend on what the market looks like and how they prioritize the roster needs.

Personally, I think the Jazz should focus on spending the majority of the MLE, if not all of it, on a switchy wing player that can defend quicker players. I know that there are a lot of Jazz fans hoping the MLE will get used on Derrick Favors or a Favors type, but I think the Jazz can get that kind of player for cheaper and that the greater need is wing defense.

Mark J. Terrill, AP

Q: Is it just me or did it end up feeling underwhelming when the season ended? Not just the Jazz, but the whole thing? I think not having fans in the building was a way bigger deal than we all thought it would be. — Ben

A: Ben, I completely and absolutely agree. When I was in the arena at the bubble there was still an energy about things and it made it all feel real. But when I was back at home watching the games on TV, the lack of fans became more and more noticeable as the playoffs continued.

Watching the Lakers championship trophy presentation happen in a mostly empty arena was incredibly underwhelming and it almost put an exclamation point on how strange life is. Instead of a distraction or an escape, it felt like it drew attention to the fact that this year is not normal.

There’s no doubt about it, the game of basketball is better with fans in the building. Unfortunately, I think we’re still a long way from that being reality again.

If you would like to have your question answered, you can send it to me at stodd@deseretnews.com with “mailbag” in the subject line, or you can send it to me via Twitter @NBASarah.