As a preface, the Jazz franchise is operating within a profitability window. That is to say that there is a certain minimum level of competitiveness that must be retained in order to turn a profit for the team through television revenue, ticket sales and merchandising. On the other side, there is a maximum level of competitiveness we may be able to achieve while still being able to stay afloat fiscally. Graphically speaking, the relationship between level of competition to cost in dollars is not linear. In other words, the competitive difference (from a fan’s perspective) between a first-round exit and a second-round exit is negligible, but the financial difference (in payroll) between such is rather significant. The only exception to the above is the chance to put together a core of players that legitimately contends for a title (top four), only in this scenario could the increased spending be justified as a worthy financial risk with a high probability of coming out on top.
With that being said, here are some of the following issues we have, which I understand I may be criticized for as being negative or pessimistic.
Myth #1: Andrei’s trade value will increase toward the February deadline
Only two options exist in which Andrei could be dealt at the deadline: 1) a contender wishing to add another piece to make their final push and 2) a team under the cap looking to acquire talent by absorbing bad salary.
Option #1 is less feasible as Andrei is an expiring contract. The best-case scenario for the Jazz would be receiving other expiring contracts, which only has feasibility in a theoretical sense. Since it is unlikely we would be able to receive so much salary back as expiring, the only way the Jazz would be willing to pull the trigger is if we were receiving back what we felt was better talent. In such a case, the contending team will not deal better talent for lesser talent. Should this be the case, the only sweetener for the Jazz brass would be potential talent (young players or draft picks). We will not deal a known (Andrei) for an unknown (draft picks or young players), especially considering that contending teams are less likely to have less supply of these due to their draft position.
Option #2 is also ill-conceived since Andrei, especially as being an upcoming free agent, would offer little to a team under the cap (i.e. rebuilding). As a result, there’s nothing a rebuilding team would be willing to offer us that would entice the front office (i.e. they will not offer potential lottery picks for Andrei).
Bottom line: Andrei will not be traded, unless it is in a complete salary dump that renders us virtually nothing in return but luxury tax savings.
Myth #2: Carlos Boozer can/will be used in a sign-and-trade
A sign-and-trade requires three parties to agree on very complex issues, which you will hear about ad nauseum from Kevin O’Connor. In the end, it will necessitate bringing back salary that we won’t want. There will be no deal available in which we will (whether rightfully or not) feel that the risk would be better than just re-signing him or just letting him walk. Compounding our problem, we will be rather defeatist about actually getting anything of value for Boozer and will see the Boozer decision more simply as either bringing him back or letting him walk.
Myth #3: We will use the mid-level exception
The cost of bringing in any free agent will never financially be recouped by the franchise. $5.5 million given to a free agent will never be made back by the few more games in the W column. To use the entire (or even partial) exception, with regard to where our current squad is at, would be economically irresponsible and would have to be considered a loss from day 1. Of the free agents that are available and that we would have a chance at recruiting, none will enough of an impact to move this team out of the first or second round. It would be more costly to the franchise to bring in such a player than it would to suffer through the fickle disappointment and backlash of fans.
Bottom line: A maximum of 2.5 million of the MLE will be used, but most likely scenario none will be used
Myth #4: We will fix the big-man issue
As #3 is a no-go and we will not obtain anything from #2, it leaves our options pretty thin for a 4 or 5 man outside of minimum contract players or undrafted players. We will hope to improve internally be doing a season-long experiment with Fesenko and Koufos. We will not sign Jarron Collins, to avoid that we are “giving up”, so to speak, but rather he will be invited to training camp and we will passively opt not to release him. As a PR move, KOC will likely down-play bringing Jarron to camp as an “answer” to our big-man problems, but instead will focus on Jarron being a hard worker, a good defender, and someone with knowledge of the system who’s a great addition to our bench (while subtly implying that they’re not done making moves – but in reality they will be).
Bottom line: Jarron Collins will be back in a Jazz uniform for the 2010-2011 season
Myth #5: We have a plan as to which players we will bring back and will execute that plan aggressively
Since it is too early to know what the market may be offering some of our players (Matthews, Korver and Boozer), it is still uncertain as to which of our free agents we are serious about having return. We don’t want to act too soon and overpay for any of them, so expect to see any re-signings happen later in August. Should somebody offer Boozer or Korver a contract before then, we will let either one walk. In the case of Korver, we will play up the amount of talent we have at the position and the drafting of Hayward and the other guy. In the case of Boozer, we will continue to talk about how it takes both sides to agree, how Boozer made the decision to leave, and how we signed Millsap to a big contract because we believe he’s every bit as capable.
Matthews, on the other hand, will be brought back. It’s doubtful he will garner that much interest in free agency, but we either wait it out a bit before re-signing him or we will wait and match.
Bottom line: Nobody knows whether or not Korver or Boozer will be back, not even the front office
Myth #6: We can use our trade exceptions
We obtained these trade exceptions by dumping salary (and talent) so that we could avoid the luxury tax. By opting to take back more salary, we will have defeated the purpose of the initial two trades (with the exception of avoiding the luxury tax, which is as of yet uncertain where we will stand this season).
Don’t shoot the messenger.
With that being said, here are some of the following issues we have, which I understand I may be criticized for as being negative or pessimistic.
Myth #1: Andrei’s trade value will increase toward the February deadline
Only two options exist in which Andrei could be dealt at the deadline: 1) a contender wishing to add another piece to make their final push and 2) a team under the cap looking to acquire talent by absorbing bad salary.
Option #1 is less feasible as Andrei is an expiring contract. The best-case scenario for the Jazz would be receiving other expiring contracts, which only has feasibility in a theoretical sense. Since it is unlikely we would be able to receive so much salary back as expiring, the only way the Jazz would be willing to pull the trigger is if we were receiving back what we felt was better talent. In such a case, the contending team will not deal better talent for lesser talent. Should this be the case, the only sweetener for the Jazz brass would be potential talent (young players or draft picks). We will not deal a known (Andrei) for an unknown (draft picks or young players), especially considering that contending teams are less likely to have less supply of these due to their draft position.
Option #2 is also ill-conceived since Andrei, especially as being an upcoming free agent, would offer little to a team under the cap (i.e. rebuilding). As a result, there’s nothing a rebuilding team would be willing to offer us that would entice the front office (i.e. they will not offer potential lottery picks for Andrei).
Bottom line: Andrei will not be traded, unless it is in a complete salary dump that renders us virtually nothing in return but luxury tax savings.
Myth #2: Carlos Boozer can/will be used in a sign-and-trade
A sign-and-trade requires three parties to agree on very complex issues, which you will hear about ad nauseum from Kevin O’Connor. In the end, it will necessitate bringing back salary that we won’t want. There will be no deal available in which we will (whether rightfully or not) feel that the risk would be better than just re-signing him or just letting him walk. Compounding our problem, we will be rather defeatist about actually getting anything of value for Boozer and will see the Boozer decision more simply as either bringing him back or letting him walk.
Myth #3: We will use the mid-level exception
The cost of bringing in any free agent will never financially be recouped by the franchise. $5.5 million given to a free agent will never be made back by the few more games in the W column. To use the entire (or even partial) exception, with regard to where our current squad is at, would be economically irresponsible and would have to be considered a loss from day 1. Of the free agents that are available and that we would have a chance at recruiting, none will enough of an impact to move this team out of the first or second round. It would be more costly to the franchise to bring in such a player than it would to suffer through the fickle disappointment and backlash of fans.
Bottom line: A maximum of 2.5 million of the MLE will be used, but most likely scenario none will be used
Myth #4: We will fix the big-man issue
As #3 is a no-go and we will not obtain anything from #2, it leaves our options pretty thin for a 4 or 5 man outside of minimum contract players or undrafted players. We will hope to improve internally be doing a season-long experiment with Fesenko and Koufos. We will not sign Jarron Collins, to avoid that we are “giving up”, so to speak, but rather he will be invited to training camp and we will passively opt not to release him. As a PR move, KOC will likely down-play bringing Jarron to camp as an “answer” to our big-man problems, but instead will focus on Jarron being a hard worker, a good defender, and someone with knowledge of the system who’s a great addition to our bench (while subtly implying that they’re not done making moves – but in reality they will be).
Bottom line: Jarron Collins will be back in a Jazz uniform for the 2010-2011 season
Myth #5: We have a plan as to which players we will bring back and will execute that plan aggressively
Since it is too early to know what the market may be offering some of our players (Matthews, Korver and Boozer), it is still uncertain as to which of our free agents we are serious about having return. We don’t want to act too soon and overpay for any of them, so expect to see any re-signings happen later in August. Should somebody offer Boozer or Korver a contract before then, we will let either one walk. In the case of Korver, we will play up the amount of talent we have at the position and the drafting of Hayward and the other guy. In the case of Boozer, we will continue to talk about how it takes both sides to agree, how Boozer made the decision to leave, and how we signed Millsap to a big contract because we believe he’s every bit as capable.
Matthews, on the other hand, will be brought back. It’s doubtful he will garner that much interest in free agency, but we either wait it out a bit before re-signing him or we will wait and match.
Bottom line: Nobody knows whether or not Korver or Boozer will be back, not even the front office
Myth #6: We can use our trade exceptions
We obtained these trade exceptions by dumping salary (and talent) so that we could avoid the luxury tax. By opting to take back more salary, we will have defeated the purpose of the initial two trades (with the exception of avoiding the luxury tax, which is as of yet uncertain where we will stand this season).
Don’t shoot the messenger.
