What's new
By:

2016-17 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD

Saint Cy of JFC said:
You can talk about uncertainty with Boston, but look at Utah's.

1. Favors was mostly trash this year and perpetually injured. He only has 1 year left on his deal.
2. Hood was trash this year and was even worse in the playoffs. What is Utah going to do with him after next year?
3. Exum is Exum. Is he going to turn the corner in the last year of his rookie deal or just continue being Exum?
4. Are the Jazz going to be able to sign Ingles?
5. What happens to Hill?
6. If I sign, how does Utah add any additional talent to help me win and get over the Warriors hump?

If Boston can pull off the plan they probably have (Get Butler, Trade IT). Then they have a much more stable future with multiple pieces than Utah which there only stability would be Hayward/Rudy.
Click to expand...

The Jazz need one more go-to offensive player to complement Hayward. It's true. But the Jazz are capable of acquiring that player or developing that player. Boston's situation is iffy, especially if their #1 player is about to get traded out. Horford on a max deal at 31-33 years old isn't helping a contender. The Lakers have an equal or stronger case to Hayward with Ball, George in FA, Hayward and one other piece a year from now.

The idea that the Celtics are ready to compete falls apart if they trade their "MVP".
 
Catchall said:
The Jazz need one more go-to offensive player to complement Hayward. It's true. But the Jazz are capable of acquiring that player or developing that player. Boston's situation is iffy, especially if their #1 player is about to get traded out. Horford on a max deal at 31-33 years old isn't helping a contender. The Lakers have an equal or stronger case to Hayward with Ball, George in FA, Hayward and one other piece a year from now.

The idea that the Celtics are ready to compete falls apart if they trade their "MVP".
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you are so dismissive on Horford. I dont think you watch him.

And again, the Lakers are in the West, an they dont have a strong case at all. Their coach isnt as good as Stevens and they dont have as many future assets to build with and are in the harder conference.

They would get Jimmy Butler, who is ions better than IT. So is Hayward. They would be subtracting one overrated 5'9 PG for two 6'8 All-Stars (plus w/e they get out of IT)
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Yes, I think if Butler/George cost too many assets to get, they dont sign Hayward and just do it through the young guys while trading IT.
Click to expand...
So what about the other part of my post? Do you know how the celtics got all these top picks 3 years in a row? What did they give up?
 
cacb6587a8b0df38106f25f4399de958.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top