View Poll Results: Keep Big Al or not?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would like to retain him, paying him his current salary

    3 4.17%
  • No way!

    35 48.61%
  • Yes, but for less money

    33 45.83%
  • Foye is fools gold!

    1 1.39%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 94
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    10
    Rep Level
    314

    Do you still want to see Big Al shipped?

    I for one, wouldn't mind seeing us sign him for a 3-4 year extension. Given the fact that he doesn't make as much as he is currently getting paid. He has continued to improve every year since coming over. IMO, he is no longer a black hole. His defense is still lacking, but, Favors/Kanter playing aside him could mask his inabilities/ lack of caring. I just want to see how everyone feels about keeping him. Remember as you vote, the Jazz will never get a big free agent to come here.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    10
    Rep Level
    314
    FWIW, Foye really is fools gold!

  3.  

     

  4. #3
    Senior Member Hotttnickkk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    17,653
    Rep Power
    81
    Rep Level
    19050
    Yes I want to see him gone.

    But reality is Greg would rather keep him to sell tickets.
    KkKkkKKkkkKkKkkKKKkkkKkkkKkk

    #LoveYourNeighbourHOOD

  5. #4
    Senior Member Thee jazz fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,468
    Rep Power
    36
    Rep Level
    6312
    I want to se us become a more divers offense, and that's not happening with Al. Kanter and Favors are the future, and that's not happening with Al staying. I want to see Hayward develop into the player the jazz lean on to set up the offense, but that's not happening with Al hear. I want the jazz to take the next step, and become a contender, that's not happening with Al anchoring the team.

    I'm not one of those posters that can't ever give credit to the big guy, but Al resigning to me does more harm then good for the future of this team.

  6. #5
    Senior Member LjJazzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    631
    Rep Power
    17
    Rep Level
    850
    I want Al here and Sap gone.

  7. #6
    Senior Member gregbroncs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Here! Wait is this a roll call?
    Posts
    3,812
    Rep Power
    28
    Rep Level
    3609
    I'd rather keep Al than Sap. But I'd really rather have both of them gone if they make more than 8-9 M a year. Which they both will. So gone it is.
    Welcome aboard Snyder, Exum and Hood. Here is to hoping this season is more entertaining than the last 3.

  8. #7
    Senior Member MoTappin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    516
    Rep Power
    11
    Rep Level
    399
    Al OR Sap should be gone to let Favors start. I say Al should go, because I'm more attached to Sap, since he's been here so long. But then, I really want Favors as PF preferably, not C. Since Paul plays the 4, I guess that way it makes more sense to ship him off to make room instead of Al. But I still like Sap better and Al's defense stinks way worse.

    I think I'm getting whiplash. :P Bottom line though is that Favors needs 30+mpg. They need to make this happen because if he's unhappy and we lose him, we're in trouble.
    You know squat. You know less than squat. You and Squat could go to the movies and Squat could wear an "I'm with Stupid" t-shirt!

  9. #8
    Senior Member dipship31's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    19
    Rep Level
    1170
    I was thinking about this the other night and I honestly couldn't think of a single scenario in which I'd like to keep Al for any amount of money. As long as he is on the roster either Favors, Kanter, or possibly both will always be underdeveloped. At least keeping Paul has other options like occasionally having him at the 3 or having him off the bench. Something Al can't do in either instance.

  10. #9
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    20,365
    Rep Power
    91
    Rep Level
    23229
    Id rather keep Sap than big Al as he compliments Favors and Kanter more than Big Al. However I think Sap is gone no matter what and Big Al is willing to stay.
    #BelieveInLindsey

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    228
    Rep Power
    16
    Rep Level
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    Id rather keep Sap than big Al as he compliments Favors and Kanter more than Big Al. However I think Sap is gone no matter what and Big Al is willing to stay.
    I haven`t done the numbers myself, but doesn`t Paul`s numbers look really bad when he`s playing without Al on the floor?

    In theory, Favors` defence and Al`s offence should compliment each other perfectly. It would also give room for Enes to be the primary back up for both positions, giving him a lot of playing time.

  12. #11
    Senior Member fishonjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    K-TOWN
    Posts
    15,574
    Rep Power
    128
    Rep Level
    33555
    I chose yes to keeping him but at alot less money..... but after reading all the comments, i dont know what the hell i was thinking and would like to change my vote to "no way"

    Lately i have been hating Al less and less cause it seems like he isn't dominating the ball as much and he seems to be trying to rebound and play defense better..... But for me to be happy with him on this team he would need to be making like 6 million a year and playing maybe 20 minutes off the bench (since i love kanter and favors) and that will never happen so i dont want to re-sign him.

  13. #12
    Senior Member Catchall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,204
    Rep Power
    38
    Rep Level
    6382
    I could live with Al, Favs and Kanter each averaging 32 mins/game in a 3-man PF/C rotation, if we can sign Al to a reasonable deal. Then I might trade Al in a year or so depending on whether Kanter makes him redundant. Although Al has his shortcomings, I think the Jazz are really being held back by not having a real PG and consistent play on the wings. If we upgrade the backcourt with a real PG and get consistency out of Hayward/Burks and the SF spot, I think Al could fit right in.

    Al could be a Lamar Odom-like 6th man on a championship team, or even a starting PF on a championship team. He needs a defensive big playing behind him to help when he gets beat on the pick-and-roll, but we have one in Favors.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Catchall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,204
    Rep Power
    38
    Rep Level
    6382
    Mmmmm.....I think I'd rather trade out Al, play the young players, and get a difference-maker like Anthony Bennett in the lottery this year.

    There are two questions here from my perspective: a) Not if, but when should we trade Al? b) How are we going to get another potential All Star on this team?

    I like trading Al, giving Kanter and Favors more minutes, taking losses and getting one of the elite bigs or the top PG in the upcoming draft.

  15. #14
    Moderator Revolution 9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    7,881
    Rep Power
    54
    Rep Level
    11196
    Sap will probably cost more but who knows maybe Big Al's stock is rising.

    I see advanatages, and disadvantages to both. We really won't know how it plays out until one is gone.
    I say we just base it on whoever is cheaper, and go forward
    "Hayward can be a #1?"......"Maybe if he goes down to Fort Wayne...DLeague" -ESPN

  16. #15
    Senior Member fishonjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    K-TOWN
    Posts
    15,574
    Rep Power
    128
    Rep Level
    33555
    Quote Originally Posted by Revolution 9 View Post
    Sap will probably cost more but who knows maybe Big Al's stock is rising.

    I see advanatages, and disadvantages to both. We really won't know how it plays out until one is gone.
    I say we just base it on whoever is cheaper, and go forward
    Agreed..... we keep whoever is cheaper, or whoever fetches less return in a trade.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •