Grantland Article about Utah Trades and Approach to Free Agency
- Thread starter mdalby
- Start date
The Jazz made this move to maintain cap flexibility next year, both for extending Favors/Hayward and making other deals. Having long-term contracts for mediocre FAs (like Teague, Millsap, Mayo, etc.) would only hurt this team. Now, it's about getting one or two more impact players in next year's draft.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
To his defense, unless one really follows the Jazz, he'll have the attitude of a "casual" fan. Over the past week I've spoken with both my brother and father who are unsettled by what the Jazz have done. They're both guys who watch almost every game and have a hard time seeing the Jazz lose. However, I think I've brought them around to accepting the "one year of pain" plan.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Nah, Simmons really liked the trade for us and called it a "textbook 'suck for Wiggins' move".
Gegenläufigen
Banned
i really like lowe
i think he is just commenting on how sad it is to watch nba teams pay to tank
which is basically what utah did
its a problem and i hope the nba learns how to fix it
there has to be some kind of incentive to being a middle of the pack team
i think he is just commenting on how sad it is to watch nba teams pay to tank
which is basically what utah did
its a problem and i hope the nba learns how to fix it
there has to be some kind of incentive to being a middle of the pack team
Gegenläufigen
Banned
half the nba becomes unwatchable after the allstar break
this season its going to be like that for the entire season
you will see star players on bad teams sit out an extra week or two for injuries
this season its going to be like that for the entire season
you will see star players on bad teams sit out an extra week or two for injuries
GVC
Well-Known Member
Someone?
mellow
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid that the owners and the players don't see it as a problem and have no incentive to change anything.
I think Zach Lowe's main argument with the "two to three moves down the line" piece is that he thought our cap space would be more valuable at the trade deadline than it would now. That's an argument you could make, I suppose, but I doubt anything will be available at the deadline that fetches even more assets while preserving future flexibility.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Agree. That was my thought and first "gut" reaction to the trade. I wanted a lottery pick. Then I stopped and re-eaxmined the deal. First off, we don't want to handcuff ourselves with really bad contracts. Second, we don't know what will be offered at the deadline. Most teams are already maneuvering themselves out of the high luxury tax penalties. And the ones who remain have stated they're willing to pay the tax. Sure, straight cap space is more valuable. But we got four picks and STILL have $31M in expirings and/or players like Rush and Marvin who may have some trade value to contenders at the deadline. How great would it be if we could get additional picks for those expirings? Then we'd be reading articles about how savvy Lindsey was to get double value for our cap space.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
This. His building arrogance and 'matter-of-fact' writing style got the best of him here.
JayCamjazzfan
Member
Whoever wrote this article must be a manslap fan
Sneakers
Well-Known Member
Lowe still has a point here though. There's a chance our cap space could have netted us more (if not substantially more) at the upcoming trade deadline. Or even further into this offseason. We essentially took on $$$$ for 2 first round picks, one of which, despite the wishful thinking among us, is destined to be in the 20s. I know it's not my money, but that's not the point, because it was about how we used it, not if. And I know I'm going to get murdered since 95% of Jazz fans have convinced themselves this was the best trade known to man. How much of it (cap space) do we have left?
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
I agree with the article, still very luke warm on the trade. The best part of the article though is:
The Jefferson contract is bad. There is no way anyone could have watched the NBA over the last few seasons and concluded Jefferson might be worth double Millsap over the potential length of their deals, and about $4 million more than Millsap over a per-year basis. He’s a slow-footed, not intuitive defender against the pick-and-roll in a league in which just about every team runs a pick-and-roll on every possession. Want to be depressed, Charlotte fans? Find video of the Spurs-Jazz series from the 2012 playoffs.
The Jefferson contract is bad. There is no way anyone could have watched the NBA over the last few seasons and concluded Jefferson might be worth double Millsap over the potential length of their deals, and about $4 million more than Millsap over a per-year basis. He’s a slow-footed, not intuitive defender against the pick-and-roll in a league in which just about every team runs a pick-and-roll on every possession. Want to be depressed, Charlotte fans? Find video of the Spurs-Jazz series from the 2012 playoffs.
CALJAZZFAN
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. No offense to those who felt the trades were good or great moves, but I'm somewhat surprised by the overwhelming love of the trades on this site. I personally agree that we might have gotten more in return, either in the way of better players or better or more picks. The trades are what they are, but I certainly don't think we robbed anyone blind.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
4.75 million.
The problem is that there is no incentive for trading '14 lottery picks at the deadline. The only possible way is if a team is in the luxury tax and wants to avoid the tax. Problem is, most of the teams in luxury tax are either really good or have no picks to trade. Teams aren't going to trade a pick to just get under next year's cap, which would mean the Jazz would be taking long term salary.
Lowe is great, but I think he missed this one.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Agree with you there. We got two picks that will likely be in the early 20's, plus a handful of seconds. On face value, about what could be expected. But flip this around and realize teams usually GIVE UP assets for expiring contracts. We received assets, and maintained our ability to be players in the trade market at the deadline. But don't underestimate the value of the 2nd rounders. In any deal, we have to give up an asset (this trade we gave up Murphy). Now we have GS' picks as trade throw-ins instead of our own. And that could be important next year and beyind. Early 2nd's are sometimes more valuable than late 1st's (nearly the same crop of players, but contracts aren't guaranteed). Let's just have fun and say we finish with the #5 pick and GS finishes at #22. Could you imagine a draft where we get the #5 pick and trade the 22nd and 35th for #18 or so. Then we turn around and trade our cap space and the rights to whoever we chose with GS' pick to one of the teams clearing space to go after Lebron or another 2014 FA - in exchange for future #1's and 1-yr deals, of course! We have one more summer we can do that, until we're up against the cap with new deals for Hayward and Favors and then Kanter and Burks.