What's new
By:

24 Hours until that 17 million disappears.....

Jack Strop said:
While that's indeed correct, using the 2016 cap space adds that player to Utahs roster and cap for 2017. How far over do you think the Jazz board is willing to go? trade for player(s) now and that may mean not trying to get Hill or others, Jazz aren't going to pay a HUGE tax penalty.
Click to expand...

I expect Utah to be able to dump about 18 million if they have to in Diaw/Burks, and could find other ways to cut salary as well. They will pay the tax when the time comes, but I expect them to do whatever they can to stay under this year, as they then have 2 years to pay it before having to get back under to avoid the repeater.

If Utah finds a good opportunity available, they will burn that cap space and worry about crossing the tax bridge if they come to it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mexico said:
Sure its not a great contract but he still is the best stretch 4 in the NBA. I would not call that a toxic contract. Teams can handle one bad contract. It also nets us a reliable sharp shooter at the 2 position.
Click to expand...

I don't know that he can qualify as being the best stretch 4 when he's a poor man's Love but without the rebounding. I'd like him, though, if it weren't for the contract.
 
I have a feeling that DL and the Jazz are unsure which route is best. On one hand we're hearing that Hayward really wants Hill back and that if he stays the Jazz have a better chance of keeping Hayward. On the other hand we're hearing that if the Jazz are aggressive in trades to improve the team it will help keep Hayward because he wants to win asap. The problem is that we can't really do both right now. If we are aggressive with this cap space to go get a player righy now that may move the needle for Hayward then we can't keep Hill. If we are trying to keep Hill then we can't do a big move right now. It's a catch 22. I have a feeling that we don't do anything unless we can acquire a big name like Love.
 
infection said:
I don't know that he can qualify as being the best stretch 4 when he's a poor man's Love but without the rebounding. I'd like him, though, if it weren't for the contract.
Click to expand...

Because he is a much better shooter than Love. Love might do other things well but Anderson is the best shooter at his position in the NBA. Maybe one of the best shooters in the NBA period. Love is a better passer and a better rebounder. I think their defense might be a push, I dont know.
 
This lineup is attainable and can beat GS I think

Hill/Exum
Hayward/Eric Gordon
Paul George/Ingles/JJ
Favors/Anderson/JJ
Gobert/Favors/Bradley

A really solid starting lineup that is close to GS but maybe a step behind but a much better bench and more options. Small ball lineup with our bench of 5 guys who can shoot the three in Exum/Gordon/Ingles/JJ/Anderson. 4 of which are some of the best shooters in the NBA. Maybe play Hill in that lineup and you have 5 really really good shooters.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Because he is a much better shooter than Love. Love might do other things well but Anderson is the best shooter at his position in the NBA. Maybe one of the best shooters in the NBA period. Love is a better passer and a better rebounder. I think their defense might be a push, I dont know.
Click to expand...

Based on what, though? I don't have an opinion I'm just curious. I haven't seen Anderson play enough. Their numbers are fairly comparable for their careers with similar attempts from deep, except Love scores more. I'm curious how much Anderson could score on our current team. With 3 years left on his deal I guess it's not the end of the world, but we'd have to find a taker for Burks which I don't believe there is one.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Sure its not a great contract but he still is the best stretch 4 in the NBA. I would not call that a toxic contract. Teams can handle one bad contract. It also nets us a reliable sharp shooter at the 2 position.
Click to expand...

Recent reports say that GMs around the league consider that to be one of the worst contracts out there, so I guess it depends on your definition of toxic. Teams with enough cap space to take Ryno without sending salary back were asking for 2 first rounders.
 
infection said:
Based on what, though? I don't have an opinion I'm just curious. I haven't seen Anderson play enough. Their numbers are fairly comparable for their careers with similar attempts from deep, except Love scores more. I'm curious how much Anderson could score on our current team. With 3 years left on his deal I guess it's not the end of the world, but we'd have to find a taker for Burks which I don't believe there is one.
Click to expand...

Love score point inside much better than Anderson he is really just a pure shooter who can get really hot. This year Anderson shot over 7 3's a game and still shot over 40%. For his career he has shot more threes at a better percentage than Love. They have both played in the NBA for 9 years and Anderson has shot better percentages for 7 of those years from 3. One of those years Anderson had a barely worse percentage but shot twice as many threes for the season.

Anderson is just a pure shooter at the 4 spot.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Recent reports say that GMs around the league consider that to be one of the worst contracts out there, so I guess it depends on your definition of toxic. Teams with enough cap space to take Ryno without sending salary back were asking for 2 first rounders.
Click to expand...

Problem with Anderson is you can guard him with a wing and he won't punish you for it. He can't guard anyone so it creates issues. Also had his fair share of injuries.

I think 2 firsts is too much and I think that was speaking of the price right now... like the teams that could take back that much salary now are asking that much. I fully expect Sacramento to take him into their cap space and only get a pick or some mild compensation for doing so. But they couldn't do it before July 1.

I wouldn't want the contract here... hard pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top