What's new
By:

A Wednesday afternoon in August..

The only change I would make is taking out 10 or 9 and putting in Harris' teardrop vs the Heat. Number 2 is still my season favorite.
 
I can't wait for the season to start. This has been the longest off-season ever.

G-time is a stud.

Paul Millsap is a bad ***. How anyone would rather trade him than Al is beyond me.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Better return?
Click to expand...

fair point, although i'm not sure how much return we really NEED on a paul/al deal to be successful short and long term. i mean, if we DON'T trade either one, then at least one of them is likely walking next year without anything in return. we're two deep everwhere except PG (and we'd need a 4th big if we unloaded one of those two), so i don't think we need a huge haul in return.
 
theNBAnerd said:
fair point, although i'm not sure how much return we really NEED on a paul/al deal to be successful short and long term. i mean, if we DON'T trade either one, then at least one of them is likely walking next year without anything in return. we're two deep everwhere except PG (and we'd need a 4th big if we unloaded one of those two), so i don't think we need a huge haul in return.
Click to expand...

Gaining the cap space might be better than any return. Letting one or both walk isn't necessarily getting "nothing." And getting less than value for the sake of breaking a 'logjam' is never smart.
 
billyshelby said:
Gaining the cap space might be better than any return. Letting one or both walk isn't necessarily getting "nothing." And getting less than value for the sake of breaking a 'logjam' is never smart.
Click to expand...

yeah true... but if we traded al for a backup PG, a backup big man and a pick, we still get extra cap space and we wind up with a roster that is 2-3 deep at every position while clearing the way for favors to become our future star. i don't really see that as taking "less than value"... i see that as getting what we need and still maintaining flexibility for the future.
 
theNBAnerd said:
yeah true... but if we traded al for a backup PG, a backup big man and a pick, we still get extra cap space and we wind up with a roster that is 2-3 deep at every position while clearing the way for favors to become our future star. i don't really see that as taking "less than value"... i see that as getting what we need and still maintaining flexibility for the future.
Click to expand...

Assuming they're all expiring contracts, sure. And assuming we're willing to win less, yeah. But we could also do the same thing with Sap, probably get more value considering Sap's cheap deal, and get more off our books when Al expires.
 
Nice highlights but watching the Favors help us beat GS only reminds me how we lost out on the 7th pick. Most of the top 10 had Millsap in the highlights and people want to trade him.
 
billyshelby said:
Assuming they're all expiring contracts, sure. And assuming we're willing to win less, yeah. But we could also do the same thing with Sap, probably get more value considering Sap's cheap deal, and get more off our books when Al expires.
Click to expand...

there's plenty of evidence to suggest we wouldn't have to settle for winning less if we traded al... but even if we did have to backslide for a year in order to turn favors into a star, it's worth it.

we'll see how paul's and al's value plays out, but remember that as an expiring, paul's cheaper deal isn't necessarily an advantage. if a team wants to move large salaries for an expiring, they get more mileage out of al. not saying that's necessarily the smartest type of deal for the jazz to get involved in, just saying that there are a lot of scenarios in which al can fetch some value, too.

and i'll repeat what i've said all summer: the real value in any al trade is the effect it can have on fave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top