Tony Jones: Favors and Jazz unlikely to reach an agreement on renegotiation and extension
- Thread starter stitches
- Start date
Come on, this is not clever at all and you know it. With Gobert looming so large and Favors 1/having physical issues 2/commanding a big pay day and the team 3/having to pays Hayward and Hill... not reaching an agreement with Favors was likely.
Now you can say "but mom ! we should have traded him then".. And what for ? Do you just dump Favors for a second round pick and garbage ??? No you keep him until the end of the season because he is a very good player who can help you go deep in the playoffs.
Sometimes in a situation like this, playing a player until he expires and then letting him walk is actually the most responsible thing to do.
Utah Jazz Newsfeed
Active Member
Salt Lake Tribune - Utah Jazz, forward Derrick Favors unlikely to agree on extension before deadline
Oklahoma City • With the deadline looming Tuesday, the Utah Jazz and starting power forward Derrick Favors are unlikely to come to terms on a renegotiation and extension of his contract, Favors’ agent Wallace Prather tells The Salt Lake Tribune. “I don’t see it,” Prather told The Tribune via text message. The Jazz have $13.6 million in cap space, and are currently $4 million below the salary cap floor. Favors’ current contract expires after next season. The former Georgia Tech star has had a ...
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/4990265-155/utah-jazz-forward-derrick-favors-unlikely
Oklahoma City • With the deadline looming Tuesday, the Utah Jazz and starting power forward Derrick Favors are unlikely to come to terms on a renegotiation and extension of his contract, Favors’ agent Wallace Prather tells The Salt Lake Tribune. “I don’t see it,” Prather told The Tribune via text message. The Jazz have $13.6 million in cap space, and are currently $4 million below the salary cap floor. Favors’ current contract expires after next season. The former Georgia Tech star has had a ...
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/4990265-155/utah-jazz-forward-derrick-favors-unlikely
It's not just Favors. It's Hill too. I wouldn't mind us using it on either of them. It seems like we won't be able to use it at all now. Also, I think you are mistaking me for somebody else - I don't want to get rid off Favors now and definitely not for cents on the dollar. I wanted to use the money we can afford now, so we can strike a deal that's going to be a bargain in the future.
Last edited:
Coach Ellis
Well-Known Member
Three things. . .
01. "Not likely" isn't the same as "no deal". The NBA is a deadline based business. I'd wait until they actually fail to come to terms before getting pissed off about it.
02. The Jazz could still use some of that cap space to add a depth guy like Bogut or Casspi here for a stretch run.
03. Cap space makes draft day trades easier to pull off. While matching salaries can be utilized, you have to have cap space in order to complete a trade. Take the Hill trade for example. . . Indy and Atlanta both needed to trade a player with a certain cap # in order to complete that, but the Jazz could just send out a pick or other cheap asset because they had the cap space from last year to facilitate that deal.
Still lots of room to maneuver, and it's better to have options than not.
01. "Not likely" isn't the same as "no deal". The NBA is a deadline based business. I'd wait until they actually fail to come to terms before getting pissed off about it.
02. The Jazz could still use some of that cap space to add a depth guy like Bogut or Casspi here for a stretch run.
03. Cap space makes draft day trades easier to pull off. While matching salaries can be utilized, you have to have cap space in order to complete a trade. Take the Hill trade for example. . . Indy and Atlanta both needed to trade a player with a certain cap # in order to complete that, but the Jazz could just send out a pick or other cheap asset because they had the cap space from last year to facilitate that deal.
Still lots of room to maneuver, and it's better to have options than not.
Good. We don't need more money locked into longterm contracts yet. After they re-sign Hayward and possibly Hill this summer they will be to stick around the salary cap. Possibly get back under it to keep some flexibility by shedding a few contracts in trades around draft time.
True, but when it says "not likely", the chances are not great.
That would be extremely underwhelming use of that capspace. Also, isn't Casspi out for the season? Or did I miss something?
This is not exactly good news. We cannot afford to absorb future money with Hayward and Hill pending contracts. The only reason to take on future money on draft day without sending out about the same would be if sometime between end of the season and draft day Hayward tells them he's out(in which case Hill will probably follow) and thus we won't be needing the money and we can try to do some trade of the sort Burks+picks for ... Batum to try to salvage the team's chances to compete the following year.
I don't like the options... at all!
The whole point of using this money now is that this is money we can afford now and money we cannot afford in the future. If you want to sign Hill in the summer, it's much better to give him 14M now in exchange for a discount in the future years, making our cap situation more manageable for the next several years.
