Jazz make a trade at the deadline?

[Dr. Jones]

Haven't read the thread.

But I agree with siding toward losing Hayward.

His hair has been being groomed for a bigger stage.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Only trade I would make is Rudy Gay.

If we end up facing the Warriors in the playoffs, I think Rudy Gay is a guy who could potentially make the series different. People forget, but he is 6'8 w/ a giant wingspan. When GSW go small w/ KD at the 4, Gay would be an excellent small ball 4.

Not saying I would give up a ton of assets to get him, but I would give up draft picks. I think Sacramento pretty much knows he wants out of there, so they should look to deal him for w/e they can get. IDK who is going to really splurge to get him, but he would be a perfect fit here. Rudy Gay for Joe Johnson works straight up and just throw in some combination of 1st round picks.

Then you basically cancel out all backup PG play, giving all those minutes to Burks (spot minutes for Exum here and there). Ingles becomes your backup 2, Gay your 3/4. Minutes distribution come playoff time would be like:

PG: Hill (35)/Burks (13)
SG: Hood (30)/Ingles (10)/Burks(8)
SF: Hayward (38)/Gay(5)/Ingles (5)
PF: Favors (18)/Gay(20)/Lyles(10)
C: Gobert (35)/Favors (13)

Minutes Favors plays alongside Gobert or Gay at the 4 fluctuate depending on matchup.

Tell me that isnt a boss 9 man playoff rotation.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

So basically, Gay takes minutes from Diaw, Lyles and Ingles. He's a streaky shooter, but he brings defense and athleticism even if his shot isn't falling. If Sacto is out of the playoff picture, they might sell low.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So basically, Gay takes minutes from Diaw, Lyles and Ingles. He's a streaky shooter, but he brings defense and athleticism even if his shot isn't falling. If Sacto is out of the playoff picture, they might sell low.

Yeah, basically it gives us someone who can matchup against teams like Houston and Golden State who play small at the 4 a lot.

I like Lyles, but I dont have a ton of confidence in him this year to be consistent enough on both ends against teams who go small.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Threw something together. Would love to hear thoughts and opinions.

https://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=hfnrydn

I know it's risky but if it pays off I think we become a better team.

 

[ruca]

Threw something together. Would love to hear thoughts and opinions.

https://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=hfnrydn

I know it's risky but if it pays off I think we become a better team.

I think we're giving up way to much for a player on the wrong side of 30. Also his jumpshot can be inconsistent at times and he's been known to coast through games. I don't know if we want that kind of mentality on the team moving forward. Maybe they could include a future first and we trade out exum for mack?

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Park Bites]

Boris brought this up in another thread

Jazz trade

1st round pick
Mack
JJ
Diaw
Lyles

To Dallas for

Dwill
Nowitski

Hill, dwill, Neto
Hood, Burks, exum
Hayward, Ingles
Favors, nowitski
Gobert, withey

Withey would never play as nowitski gets all the bench minutes from favors and gobert.

Frees up playing time for Ingles. Williams has 1 year left. Nowitski might retire or even give it another year on such a stacked team.

1 last hoorah for nowitski and an even deeper PG spot with williams

Sent from my Z981 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm guessing history wasn't your best subject in school. The Millers have paid the LT twice when they had a team poised to make some noise in the playoffs.

As for them selling off picks, there are multiple reasons why they do that sometimes. The Jazz spend a lot of time researching players, and sometimes they just don't expect any players of interest to be available where they will be drafting. They also don't ever want to be carrying a whole bunch of rookies in any given year. 3 rookies in one year is usually the limit, and sometimes roster spot limitations prevent them form even carrying that many. They have also proven to be willing to buy a pick when there was a player available they wanted. That's how we got Rudy Gobert.

Anyway, there are lots of examples of the Millers spending to make the team better, when they wouldn't have if there was any truth to them running the team cheaply. One of those examples was choosing to match Hayward, when about 60%-70% of the fan base wanted them to pass. Matching that contract was a big gamble, as Hayward didn't have a great season leading up to it. Fans cry and complain now that the FO didn't just max him and get the extra year, and even though he has proven to be worth it, that contract was a big gamble that could have backfired.

The best example was their decision to build from the ground up instead of continuing to build a mediocre team to chase the 8th seed. That's a really hard choice for a lot of teams to make, as they lose quite a bit of money by missing the playoffs for multiple years.

The jazz have no doubt, made some mistakes over the years, but the salary cap makes it extremely important to spend money intelligently. Teams like the nets and Knicks have proven that not only does throwing money around NOT guarantee anything, it can cause you big problems that take years to pull out of.

Utah has been one of the better run organizations over the years, and just because the Millers don't throw money around like Brooklyn, doesn't make them cheap. It makes them smart. Calling them cheap is absolute nonsense.

Didn't they also buy the stars d league team? Would that be another example of spending money that they didn't need to spend?

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Please name the cap mistakes I make or comments that indicate I don't know what I'm talking about.. I'll wait...

I didn't say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I do question whether or not you should be talking down to others as if you're an expert on the subject, and I feel that way about anyone who disrespects DL as if he is making mistakes that should be no-brainers, or makes comments about the Millers being cheap.

You use hindsight to tell everyone what we should have done with our cap space, while ignoring other legitimate reasons why teams maintain room under the cap. Utah has done this for years for a few reasons: For one, it gives greater flexibility in case a significant trade comes along that we might have trouble pulling off otherwise. #2 is because Utah has been able to pick up draft picks/assets in the past by facilitating a trade for some other dumb team that blew all their cap space and then didn't have enough flexibility to make a trade they wanted, or just wanted to get below the LT. #2 isn't really as relevant since the cap jumped and everyone has cap space, but it will be again when things level out.

Just because a trade never happened, doesn't mean we obviously should have used up all our cap space by picking up minor assets. Hindsight doesn't make any of us smarter than Dennis Lindsey. If DL knew ahead of time that our cap space would go unused, no doubt he would try and utilize it. However, unlike us fans judging the situation after the fact, he has to work with what he knows at the time, and it makes sense to give yourself the best chance possible, in case a home run opportunity should present itself.


When talking about LT, you said to ignore history and wait for that day to come, when it already has come. Twice.

You perpetuate the myth of the Millers being cheap and talk about selling picks, while completely ignoring the pick the Millers bought in order to draft Gobert.


Anyway, my intent wasn't to say you don't have a better grasp on the CBA than most posters around here, because I think you do. However, it really bugs me when ANYONE starts griping about the Millers being cheap or DL being inept, while acting like there aren't multiple angles and good reasons for such things as maintaining room under the cap. The idea that not spending money = the Millers are cheap, is overly simplistic and quite frankly, wrong.



P.S. I want to give stifle tower credit. I have been having this discussion on these boards for years, and Stifle used to be one of posters repeating this idea of the Millers being cheap. Good to see he's turned towards the correct side of this discussion.

 

[NAOS]

I didn't say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I do question whether or not you should be talking down to others as if you're an expert on the subject, and I feel that way about anyone who disrespects DL as if he is making mistakes that should be no-brainers, or makes comments about the Millers being cheap.

You use hindsight to tell everyone what we should have done with our cap space, while ignoring other legitimate reasons why teams maintain room under the cap. Utah has done this for years for a few reasons: For one, it gives greater flexibility in case a significant trade comes along that we might have trouble pulling off otherwise. #2 is because Utah has been able to pick up draft picks/assets in the past by facilitating a trade for some other dumb team that blew all their cap space and then didn't have enough flexibility to make a trade they wanted, or just wanted to get below the LT. #2 isn't really as relevant since the cap jumped and everyone has cap space, but it will be again when things level out.

Just because a trade never happened, doesn't mean we obviously should have used up all our cap space by picking up minor assets. Hindsight doesn't make any of us smarter than Dennis Lindsey. If DL knew ahead of time that our cap space would go unused, no doubt he would try and utilize it. However, unlike us fans judging the situation after the fact, he has to work with what he knows at the time, and it makes sense to give yourself the best chance possible, in case a home run opportunity should present itself.


When talking about LT, you said to ignore history and wait for that day to come, when it already has come. Twice.

You perpetuate the myth of the Millers being cheap and talk about selling picks, while completely ignoring the pick the Millers bought in order to draft Gobert.


Anyway, my intent wasn't to say you don't have a better grasp on the CBA than most posters around here, because I think you do. However, it really bugs me when ANYONE starts griping about the Millers being cheap or DL being inept, while acting like there aren't multiple angles and good reasons for such things as maintaining room under the cap. The idea that not spending money = the Millers are cheap, is overly simplistic and quite frankly, wrong.



P.S. I want to give stifle tower credit. I have been having this discussion on these boards for years, and Stifle used to be one of posters repeating this idea of the Millers being cheap. Good to see he's turned towards the correct side of this discussion.

My opinions have been similar to his RE: the use of the cap since the GSW trade. But you make some good points here. The biggest problem I see with your post is that it effectively silences critiques of the the FO under the banner of "we just don't know enough." There's truth to that, but it isn't as closed off as you present it.

FWIW, over the past few seasons HH has presented a few cap-friendly, asset-management type of deals that would have made the team better. Pragmatic deals that didn't involve "stars" or any other such noise. Players who would have signed for the $$ he suggested.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I didn't say that you don't know what you're talking about, but I do question whether or not you should be talking down to others as if you're an expert on the subject, and I feel that way about anyone who disrespects DL as if he is making mistakes that should be no-brainers, or makes comments about the Millers being cheap.

You use hindsight to tell everyone what we should have done with our cap space, while ignoring other legitimate reasons why teams maintain room under the cap. Utah has done this for years for a few reasons: For one, it gives greater flexibility in case a significant trade comes along that we might have trouble pulling off otherwise. #2 is because Utah has been able to pick up draft picks/assets in the past by facilitating a trade for some other dumb team that blew all their cap space and then didn't have enough flexibility to make a trade they wanted, or just wanted to get below the LT. #2 isn't really as relevant since the cap jumped and everyone has cap space, but it will be again when things level out.

Just because a trade never happened, doesn't mean we obviously should have used up all our cap space by picking up minor assets. Hindsight doesn't make any of us smarter than Dennis Lindsey. If DL knew ahead of time that our cap space would go unused, no doubt he would try and utilize it. However, unlike us fans judging the situation after the fact, he has to work with what he knows at the time, and it makes sense to give yourself the best chance possible, in case a home run opportunity should present itself.


When talking about LT, you said to ignore history and wait for that day to come, when it already has come. Twice.

You perpetuate the myth of the Millers being cheap and talk about selling picks, while completely ignoring the pick the Millers bought in order to draft Gobert.


Anyway, my intent wasn't to say you don't have a better grasp on the CBA than most posters around here, because I think you do. However, it really bugs me when ANYONE starts griping about the Millers being cheap or DL being inept, while acting like there aren't multiple angles and good reasons for such things as maintaining room under the cap. The idea that not spending money = the Millers are cheap, is overly simplistic and quite frankly, wrong.



P.S. I want to give stifle tower credit. I have been having this discussion on these boards for years, and Stifle used to be one of posters repeating this idea of the Millers being cheap. Good to see he's turned towards the correct side of this discussion.

I have lots of issues with what you are saying and what you are insinuating from what I said... but am going to back up to my original statement...

If we do not extend Hill, make a trade for a player, or make a trade for a future asset using our cap space then that is more signs of the team being operated for profit above basketball considerations... or in other words cheap owners. We are at the salary floor and stand to pocket 13M by staying there. The point of operating under the cap is to do stuff... as you have astutely pointed out... I would like to point out that we have been here before for most of the last three years and done nothing that we could not have done by being at or over the cap. So either there have been zero deals getting done around stuff like this or... we've been pocketing the cash. We can still be flexible and spend up to the cap... as a matter of fact we might even get more flexibility by doing so.

i also know that we went over the tax in the past... we likely never do so again... I'm not recommending we do that tbh... im just noticing a pattern here of us being at the floor and then when the deadlines pass the company line is "flexibility, no deals out there, yada yada" . I'm not buying it at all... because other teams have made deals that we could have. I think DL is great... I think our management is good... I think they've been given a budget and are operating around it. It all makes good business sense and makes the millers money, but some of it hurts what we could be doing on the basketball court. Look at the payroll of the teams around us... look at ours... realize we've been in the bottom five the last 2-3 years... we've been in the payroll range of the bottom feeders and tankers.

Another issue is you mentioned that bottoming out was a good example of them spending money... our payroll was low those year (which was fine) and our attendance was still good and during those years we made a profit... something most teams don't do (at least on paper) probably more than some of our playoff years.

We can agree to disagree but calling me insane for not buying the company line is tough... we will see what happens but if we can't get anything done I'm comfortable with everything I've said. It either means DL isn't reading the landscape correctly and not getting deals done and mismanaging one of our assets to get better or the millers are taking it all in to the coffers and the basketball operations suffers a little because of it. I don't think they are setting it aside to pay luxury tax someday.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Only trade I would make is Rudy Gay.

If we end up facing the Warriors in the playoffs, I think Rudy Gay is a guy who could potentially make the series different. People forget, but he is 6'8 w/ a giant wingspan. When GSW go small w/ KD at the 4, Gay would be an excellent small ball 4.

Not saying I would give up a ton of assets to get him, but I would give up draft picks. I think Sacramento pretty much knows he wants out of there, so they should look to deal him for w/e they can get. IDK who is going to really splurge to get him, but he would be a perfect fit here. Rudy Gay for Joe Johnson works straight up and just throw in some combination of 1st round picks.

Then you basically cancel out all backup PG play, giving all those minutes to Burks (spot minutes for Exum here and there). Ingles becomes your backup 2, Gay your 3/4. Minutes distribution come playoff time would be like:

PG: Hill (35)/Burks (13)
SG: Hood (30)/Ingles (10)/Burks(8)
SF: Hayward (38)/Gay(5)/Ingles (5)
PF: Favors (18)/Gay(20)/Lyles(10)
C: Gobert (35)/Favors (13)

Minutes Favors plays alongside Gobert or Gay at the 4 fluctuate depending on matchup.

Tell me that isnt a boss 9 man playoff rotation.

He's an undervalued target imo... the narrative has gone too far on him.

The only issue would be his role with us... he doesn't like playing the 4 even though he is well suited for it. I'm not sure he's a guy with the right attitude to do what his team needs to win. Just some of the stuff I hear from being out near the Kings.

Maybe he gets in a different environment ant figures it out.