What's new
By:

General NBA Craziness and How it Applies to Utah

Cappy_Smurf said:
Are you for real?

Traded for George Hill and Diaw and signed JJ. That's the best offseason in the league last year, other than Durant to the dubs.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I totally forgot about the trade for Jill. I'd like to see the Jazz get better again. If they lose Hill and Hayward and replace them with a rookie and Rudy Gay I wouldn't be happy or shocked though.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
NUMBERICA said:
I think this will be one of the most insane of seasons we've ever seen.
Click to expand...

We're two days before the draft and we've already seen more than $100 million in salary moved and the #1 and #3 picks in the draft moved. I'm just going to quote this every time something insane happens.
 
Eminence said:
Spectacular for the Nets. Good news for us too actually, potentially takes another team off the PG free agent market. Cheaper Hill is great for us.
Click to expand...

He wont be cheaper than 17 which i think yet too expensive for a 30+ injury prone not all star pg.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Paul George is certainly still attainable for the Jazz
Click to expand...
This is some interesting stuff. For the Lakers, it actually makes a lot of sense to not get George this offseason if they're really confident they can get him next offseason. One more year to be not good, get another good pick, develop their young players, and NOT lose more assets. Additionally, if the Pacers are strictly adamant about getting the #2 pick, then that will certainly
Be a non-starter for the Lakers and shift talks elsewhere (which we all need to hope for).
 
As good of a deal as the Lopez/Russell deal is for both sides, it is totally baffling that the Lakers didn't just do that deal for George. Like, I'm just... scratching my head. Someone help me out here.
 
NUMBERICA said:
They can't offer him the same deal they did before.
Click to expand...

They can offer him a better deal if they wanted to, but my point wasn't that they'd offer the exact same deal. Obviously bad phrasing on my part. I just don't believe they are suddenly going to play hardball with him if Hayward is still a question mark. I also don't believe money was the only reason he didn't extend.
 
NUMBERICA said:
As good of a deal as the Lopez/Russell deal is for both sides, it is totally baffling that the Lakers didn't just do that deal for George. Like, I'm just... scratching my head. Someone help me out here.
Click to expand...

No way Indy takes back Moz in a deal for George, for one thing. There are also reports that Indy wants the #2 pick, so they may have had no interest Russell.
 
NUMBERICA said:
As good of a deal as the Lopez/Russell deal is for both sides, it is totally baffling that the Lakers didn't just do that deal for George. Like, I'm just... scratching my head. Someone help me out here.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting fact about deals: both sides have to agree to it.
 
gandalfe said:
Here's an interesting fact about deals: both sides have to agree to it.
Click to expand...

Hold up. I just read a report that the talks are hanging on whether Clarkson AND Randle are included with some late 1sts.

If that is where this is at, and I'm the Pacers, I take the Russell package every time, especially since they'd almost certainly get more in the deal than was sent out for Lopez.

Also bear in mind the whole salary floor thing.
 
Man, as bad as that Lakers/Nets trade looked, Atlanta seems to have outdone it. Traded down 10 spots in the draft to dump Howard for Bellineli and Plumlee, when Plumlee has an extra year on his contract.

At least you can rationalize the Laker deal. The hawks deal is unfathomable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top