What's new
By:

Moving down and McDermott (two separate threads, really)

Doublea said:
Who knows we might. Feels a need as a shooter off the bench. Our team needs depth.
Click to expand...

If we need a long ball shooter just go grab guys like Kyle Korver and Jimmer... no need to waste our #5 pick on somebody who can only really shoot and be a defensive liability.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
If we need a long ball shooter just go grab guys like Kyle Korver and Jimmer... no need to waste our #5 pick on somebody who can only really shoot and be a defensive liability.
Click to expand...

Could you please quote the post in this thread that suggested we use our #5 on McBuckets?

Thanks
 
Hotttnickkk said:
LOL.. nice back-peddling.
Click to expand...

Back peddling?

Isn't even the title of this thread about trading down/obtaining another mid 1st rounder? I don't think anyone, even the OP advocated using the #5 on McBuckets

It might help you to actually read the thread before you mindlessly fling stupid posts.
 
infection said:
I don't necessarily mean these two subjects in conjunction, but I don't feel like making two threads.

If we can't move up and land one of the top 3 guys, how come nobody's talking about moving back? I mean, if we're eyeballing Gordon, don't we think we may be able to get him a little later and be able to pick something up in the process? I'd prefer to move back a spot or two, especially if someone like Exum is there and we're not interested, insuring that Gordon won't fall (not necessarily saying I want Gordon, but hypothetically if that's who we're looking at.)

Now for McDermott. Why no talk on this guy? I get that people like the whole "defensive identity" thing and we want to shy away from what would be considered a stereotypical Utah draft choice, but this guy is pretty good at scoring the ball. There are a lot of guys who light it up in their sophomore or senior years, which I understandably would share concern with. This guy has dominated every year of college, though, and his shooting numbers have been unbelievable without any drop or inconsistency year-to-year. I like this guy more than most people would. I think he could be a good settling piece for being a quasi go-to so long as you can have 2-3 other decent scorers (if perhaps Kanter or Burke could fit into those roles). Anyway, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this. Perhaps we could change the rules of the game to be like baseball with the DH, football with offensive and defensive teams or, my preference, like hockey where you can sub during live action, and just pick up both Gordon and McDermott.
Click to expand...

Here ya go Hotnick. Read it. Might help ya out buddy.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
so why don't we get him?
Click to expand...

Because being since we're in Utah we don't want to run the risk of creating a firestorm. See, utah has 2 major universities. 1 of those universities is extremely loyal to the Jimmer. The pressure to play and maybe even start Jimmer at the detriment of the team would be enormous. Not to mention the media circus. I get the feeling that the Jazz don't want to deal with that.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing the Jimmer on our roster.

And LOL @ those who thought Jimmer was given a fair chance. Dude was drafted by the Kings. That'll take years for him to recover. I hope he goes to the Spurs for rehab.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
What's a couple of spots usually worth in a typical draft? The risk seems pretty big actually if you really like a player unless you just draft for the next team in line or something and make them add something in for the swap.
Click to expand...
Agree.
IMO, if the Jazz truly are NOT interested in Smart, their board has a clear 3+3 separation. At the top - and likely unobtainable - are Wiggins, Parker and Embiid. Then you have Exum, Vonleh and Gordon. Those players have starter/all-star potential. Next tier down would be Smart, Saric and Randle: likely starters, but with better options in the top-6 picks. Stauskas could potentially be added to that group, but McDermott definitely not. McBuckets doesn't have a position and can't guard the water bottles. Yes, he's an unbelievable shooter. Perfect for a 6th man.

The Jazz have/will have fantastic depth. Teams need 8-9 regular rotation players; Jazz have the Core4 + Burke + probably Gobert + the #5 pick. That leaves just two more to add via the other picks, Tomic, Neto or a free agent. I'm not including Evans because I see him as a deep bench player. That's already 9, which means depth can be sacrificed if the Jazz can upgrade at any starting position.

So what the Jazz NEED are all-stars. Jazz can get that type of player in the top-6. Only trade would be down one spot if the Celts really, really want Vonleh (and he doesn't slip into the top-4). In that case, the trade would be pretty clear: Jazz get the #6 and #17 for the #5, #23 and #35. Utah can likely buy picks in the 2nd round if they want to "draft and stash" some players.
 
The Thriller said:
Because being since we're in Utah we don't want to run the risk of creating a firestorm. See, utah has 2 major universities. 1 of those universities is extremely loyal to the Jimmer. The pressure to play and maybe even start Jimmer at the detriment of the team would be enormous. Not to mention the media circus. I get the feeling that the Jazz don't want to deal with that.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing the Jimmer on our roster.

And LOL @ those who thought Jimmer was given a fair chance. Dude was drafted by the Kings. That'll take years for him to recover. I hope he goes to the Spurs for rehab.
Click to expand...
I'd be perfectly fine with then getting Jimmer. Think he'd be a great role player off the bench. I'm not too worried about the media or fans. I think that Quin Snyder can handle the pressure from both. It would be nice to have at least one guy who is deadly from behind the arc.

And I personally hope the Spurs shooting coach works with him in Utah. That would be fun.
 
No way, McDermott is a shooting guard. Definitely a Small Forward and in small line-up a stretch 4, ala Marvin Wiliams.
 
No on McDermott unless he falls to mid-teens and we somehow have a pick.

I wouldn't trade very far back.... bout the only thing I'd do is #5 and #23 for #6 and #17.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
No on McDermott unless he falls to mid-teens and we somehow have a pick.

I wouldn't trade very far back.... bout the only thing I'd do is #5 and #23 for #6 and #17.
Click to expand...

A fantastic move, in my opinion. Would be do-able if Exum is still on the board. Then again, if Exum is still on the board, I may want to move 5 and 35 for 6 and 17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top