Hantlers
Well-Known Member
You truly never disappoint.
Chad Ford: Exum > Burke right now; rookie player that's most positively surprising
- Thread starter Flc
- Start date
You truly never disappoint.
Always makes me laugh how the "traders" here think it is so easy to outwit the GMs around the league, guys who have 20 years experience, do this 24/7, and get paid a million bucks a year. "Trey sucks but if we play him maybe we can trade him for Rondo or Steph". LMAO. Exaggerating but you get the idea. If a guy is only worth a bag of Doritos don't expect to get more.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yep, as if GMs don't have access to stats or game tapes more dated than the most recent game or don't talk with scouts or other player personnel 'experts.'
candrew
Well-Known Member
Burke's body language sucked last night - and his performance was even worse. But you're fooling yourselves if you think Jazz are going to trade him any time soon.
Burke will finish out the season as the starting PG - what happens after that I don't know. But the FO would be complete idiots to dump this guy without giving him at least a full season.
Burke will finish out the season as the starting PG - what happens after that I don't know. But the FO would be complete idiots to dump this guy without giving him at least a full season.
This is why I think it is unlikely that they trade anyone this year. I think the FO wants to see what Snyder can do with them.
Specifically Kanter and Burke.
LjJazzman
Well-Known Member
I don't know if the great preseason by Trey is hurting him or helping him. Personally he made my expectations of him a lot higher then they would have been coming off of last season. So how he has played drives me crazy because I have seen him play so much better. But maybe that preseason was a complete fluke and this really is more of who he is and we need to drastically lower our expectations.
Its so frustrating having him play so badly. IF we had an average pg contribution compared to every other team I think we are fighting for the 8th seed in the playoffs this year.
I don't think we should be starting Exum even though I think he is outplaying Trey. Let Exum play against more second units and get his confidence up. I think thats the smartest way to develop him.
Its so frustrating having him play so badly. IF we had an average pg contribution compared to every other team I think we are fighting for the 8th seed in the playoffs this year.
I don't think we should be starting Exum even though I think he is outplaying Trey. Let Exum play against more second units and get his confidence up. I think thats the smartest way to develop him.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Kanter might go because he's expiring and I think at this point Jazz are leaning towards not re-signing him unless it's a market value deal or less.
But even if they do trade him it won't be a lateral move or a trade just for the sake of making a trade (when does Utah do that anyway).
But Burke isn't going anywhere unless it's a great deal - and really, who is going to offer Utah anything above value for him right now.
I think it is OK if eventually Exum becomes the starter and Burke becomes the career back-up. He would probably be a Top back-up in the league, a new age Eisley, who could play well against second units. Not every player can be a max contract guy. Plus, Exum was drafter higher in a deeper draft class, so he should eventually be Utah's starting, hopefully all-star PG.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Reading is fundamental. Coaches do not factor in trade value. However, sometimes when GMs are looking to move someone, they will tell the coach to play X player so many minutes, as to SHOWCASE them to potential trade partners. Perhaps a team has concerns over health issues or whatever. But YES, GMs do communicate with the coach about such things as benching someone who may be a potential trade asset. Therefore, if GMs sometimes ask/tell a coach to give someone minutes in anticipation of a trade happening, then trade value factors in to the way that player is used.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Burke is locked in for the next 2 years for just over 5 mil. This is about what it would cost you for a good veteran back-up PG. So even if Burke still manages to somehow bottom out as a starter, it's still economically viable to keep him.
At some point(we are not there yet) what should worry us if we are concerned with showcasing Trey for eventual buyers is that what we are showcasing might actually turn buyers off and plummet his value even more the more we play him.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Moving Burks to the bench now would have multiple repercussions, one of which would be setting his trade value squarely as that of a backup. Considering that we spent two 1st rounders for him, that's a major failure, and one that the FO is NOT going to concede this year. However, as long as he keeps starting, there's a chance he'll turn things around enough to increase his trade value. Believe it or not, those well paid professionals know exactly what price they paid for trey, and although you may think it's time to declare him a bag of Doritos, they have considerably more invested in him to just give up and accept that pick as a failure.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
If his value drops that much, then we will just end up keeping him as a backup anyway. After burning 2 1sts on him, that will be a major failure, which is why we need to try and get his trade value up.
I was NOT saying Burke is only worth a bag of doritos. The "trading" guys here do that sort of thing. They take a guy they really don't like, say Trey, and then say "but lets keep playing him so that his trade value stays up" as if the GMs are not smarter than that.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Yep, reading is fundamental, but so is writing:
You wrote:
"For most players, yes, but for players who potentially have more value in a trade than in keeping, of course trade value factors in at times to the way coaches play them. This is especially true for a rebuilding team."
So, I repeat my question, how do you know this? (I'm curious where my interpretation of the above quote went haywire.)
"Sounds like you think there is no communication between coach and GM, once the coach is hired. Realistically, of course GMs tell the coaches what to do at times, when it comes to giving playing time to someone they are looking to move."
Again, I ask, how do you know this? I'm curious what your source of inside info is on this topic. I'm still skeptical this happens with any kind of frequency. Which brings us back to the implied question raised by others: Do you really think other GMs are that uniformed or naive that they would be swayed by this strategy given all other source of info about players?
Burke played well in preseason and I think he will play better as the season goes on. He seems like he is afraid of Exum behind him or is just frustrated with his poor play early. I think he will break out of this and and really step up and play like he did at times last year while hitting a better percentage of his shots.
That said he is not a starter in the NBA, but neither is Exum yet. I think Burke needs to start for now and if he is struggling and playing poor then Exum finishes games and gets more minutes. If he is not improved by the trade deadline then maybe you swap their roles. If he plays better and a good trade comes along great. If he plays much better and starts being the leader on the court this team wants him to be then we hold on to him until Exum is ready to be the leader or learn to play them together more.
That said he is not a starter in the NBA, but neither is Exum yet. I think Burke needs to start for now and if he is struggling and playing poor then Exum finishes games and gets more minutes. If he is not improved by the trade deadline then maybe you swap their roles. If he plays better and a good trade comes along great. If he plays much better and starts being the leader on the court this team wants him to be then we hold on to him until Exum is ready to be the leader or learn to play them together more.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Let me get the crayons out and draw you a picture. Sometimes GMs tell their coaches either to play/not play a player that is likely to be involved in a trade in the near future. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THAT IS TRADE VALUE AFFECTING THE WAY A COACH USES A PLAYER. Have you seriously never heard of a player being benched in anticipation of a trade, so as to avoid having an injury ruin it. Happens all the time(lots of records and info on past trades, use google if you know how), but I suppose you think it's reasonable to assume that when GMs have a trade in the works, they just cross their ****ing fingers and hope the coach can read their minds.
-
Rebuilding teams operate differently than teams that are a piece or two from contending. Obviously when every win counts, GMs aren't likely to tell a coach who to play, but on a rebuilding team that spent 2 1st rounders on a player who's only been in the league a year, you can bet your *** that the FO isn't going to concede failure by allowing him to be relegated to the bench, at least not anytime soon.
