What's new
By:

Would trading for Teague be skipping steps?

Skipping steps?

  • No, this is exactly what we need.

    Votes: 11 34.4%

  • Yes, Gotta keep the cake baking.

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Yes, if we gave to much up.

    Votes: 15 46.9%

  • No, we need to use these assets.

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • Total voters
    32
Willie G. said:
I like your understanding of things, but can you explain to me why Burke + pick(s) makes sense for ATL? Couldn't they just as easily get that or more this off-season? Also, doesn't it make more sense (from our chairs, at least) for ATL to hold it together in case they start clicking again near playoff time? You could argue that last year they simply peaked too early; and that they would have run through the East if their 'peak timing' were better. Maybe their timing is better this year?

The only way Burke + pick(s) makes sense to me, when I look at it from their perspective, is if Teague is becoming a true malcontent. And I don't see that from where I'm sitting. Could be true, though.
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd get more than that in the offseason. I think it doesn't come down to making Teague a malcontent because I don't see that but I could see it hurting the relationship with Shroeder (pulling him in and out of crunch time) or maybe their chances to get an extension done. I agree though... from their perspective I wouldn't do it.

As an expiring I'd be surprised if they got a first rounder for him.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't think they'd get more than that in the offseason. I think it doesn't come down to making Teague a malcontent because I don't see that but I could see it hurting the relationship with Shroeder (pulling him in and out of crunch time) or maybe their chances to get an extension done. I agree though... from their perspective I wouldn't do it.

As an expiring I'd be surprised if they got a first rounder for him.
Click to expand...

thanks for the thoughts.

If it comes down to the relationship with Schroder, and crunch-time minutes, then I think they'll make it work for this year. Our haul isn't good enough when you consider all their other possibilities for this year. Hell, they can probably buy back any value lost on a lesser deal this off-season with the haul of a longer playoff push. And then some.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Burke and Burks if that's what it takes. Seems a tad steep to me, though.
Click to expand...

I'd go Burke and Burks plus maybe a top 10 protected pick swap with their pick and the gsw pick in 2017. I'd make them add value because I think the extra two years on burks deal have a ton of value.
 
If they won't take Burke + pick, then I would keep it to Burks only. That's even value, and far more than ATL gets elsewhere.

It also opens up playing time at the two to be filled by Exum as he plays his way back into shape. Burke can be involved in a different deal.
 
If they won't take Burke + pick, then I would keep it to Burks only. That's even value, and far more than ATL gets elsewhere.

It also opens up playing time at the two to be filled by Exum as he plays his way back into shape. Burke can be involved in a different deal.
 
Looking at our current wing depth I think it would be a mistake to flip Burks for a PG, especially when we have a potential starting PG in Exum. Is Burks worth 2 years of Teague? That sounds shaky to me.

If you can make it happen for Burke and picks then go for it. Otherwise, I can see this move compromising our options at the wing.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Looking at our current wing depth I think it would be a mistake to flip Burks for a PG, especially when we have a potential starting PG in Exum. Is Burks worth 2 years of Teague? That sounds shaky to me.

If you can make it happen for Burke and picks then go for it. Otherwise, I can see this move compromising our options at the wing.
Click to expand...

Yeah people forget the Burks + Burke make up roughly 74% of our bench scoring
 
It's not possible to remember what players like Favors, Hayward, and Gobert looked like when they were playing with a real point guard because they've never played with one.

Teague would allow the Jazz to move Hood to the bench with Burke. There would be no loss of talent in a straight Burks-for-Teague swap.
 
Engorged On Unborn Gore said:
It's not possible to remember what players like Favors, Hayward, and Gobert looked like when they were playing with a real point guard because they've never played with one.

Teague would allow the Jazz to move Hood to the bench with Burke. There would be no loss of talent in a straight Burks-for-Teague swap.
Click to expand...

1. Moving Hood to the bench would be like suggesting moving Hayward to the bench at this point
2. Who's the starting 2 guard then?
 
Engorged On Unborn Gore said:
It's not possible to remember what players like Favors, Hayward, and Gobert looked like when they were playing with a real point guard because they've never played with one.

Teague would allow the Jazz to move Hood to the bench with Burke. There would be no loss of talent in a straight Burks-for-Teague swap.
Click to expand...

So who starts at SG? Ingles or Johnson. *shudder*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top