Bring Back Paul Milsap ?
- Thread starter 416Klawzz
- Start date
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
They weren't really trying to make the playoffs. That was the Main reason they let him go. It was time for a rebuild, and he would have slowed that down.
That’s not at all why he wasn’t re-signed, but your point about crying over spilled milk stands.
But also, we shouldn’t have let him go. Still could’ve and likely would’ve grabbed Gobert, AND dodged the Exum bullet the next year. The Jazz got nothing out of their rebuild efforts they couldn’t have gotten as a good team.
But, you’re right. Oh well.
Sandman822
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't for how awful the 2020 FA class is I'd say throw a 1 year deal at him and see what he can bring, but I really feel the Jazz have to nail this offseason with how bad 2020 is shaping up and Mitchell's max extension kicking in the year after.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
I’d be willing if we can get him on a contract similar to Favors, and still keep Favors, that means Sap is our 6th man playing the Crowder role
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Lol
Agreed
We were starting over, the jazz didn’t want wins or extra cap hits. Back then it was all about the core4. Remember that?
Hello!! We were tanking, that year the draft class was supposed to be the strongest in years, and turns out to be one of the weakest. Bad luck. It’s easy to look back and say that was a wrong move but at the time it was absolutely the right move. For all we know, had we kept Sap, maybe the jazz don’t trade up for Mitchell. Of course that’s also just speculation.
Nothing wrong with what @firegirl said, it just goes with what she thinks, so maybe you need to chill just a bit.
Personally I think Favors is better than Sap. @LoPo, part of your argument is that the jazz held Sap back playing him a few mins at sf. Same could be said for Favors. First and foremost Favors had to take a back seat to Gobert and play pf, which wasn’t his natural position. Favors is simply a better player, period. Favors never had a shot at being one of the focal points during his prime, and quite frankly sacrificed his progression and prime for the team.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
We let Milsap go because we were chasing a championship. He ended up being good, which we knew, but never was a championship level player.
Lose/win Win/lose situation
Lose/win Win/lose situation
The Jazz Wonderbra
Well-Known Member
So, in conclusion, the answer to the original question is a resounding NOPE.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
Three easy responses:
#1 - we don't attract good free agents so we can't afford to let really good players go.
#2 - tanking is dumb. It isn't guaranteed to pay off. Also, consider that we already had 3 top 10 picks in Hayward, Favors and Kanter. We didn't tank, we just sucked. We would have sucked even less if we would have kept Millsap and maybe had gotten better value for Kanter instead of waiting until the last minute. Would we have sacrificed Exum and Trey Burke by keeping Millsap? Probably, but would people be complaining about that right now?
#3 - it is incredibly ignorant to say "Favors is simply a better player, period." Millsap is a better player in every single facet of the game minus maybe shot blocking. Favors has had two seasons his entire career scoring more than 13ppg. He's had only 3 seasons averaging more than 8rpg. I love the guy, but Millsap has been a much better professional basketball player.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Name a year where we were in a position to sign good free agents, last year doesn’t count as they wanted to see what this team could do.
The jazz just let them go, that’s your key line. If they wanted to be good they would’ve A. Kept one or both Sap and Al. B. They would’ve traded both or at least one of Sap Or Al. You, I assum weren’t a member of this board back then but everyone was but *** hurt that Al and Sap were getting all the minutes taking away development mins for Kanter and Favors. Most rejoiced that they wouldn’t be back and that Favors and Kanter would get a shot, and have a high draft pick in what was billed as one of the most talented draft classes.
We would have sucked even less if we would have kept Millsap and maybe had gotten better value for Kanter instead of waiting until the last minute. Would we have sacrificed Exum and Trey Burke by keeping Millsap? Probably said:
Ellipse
Well-Known Member
Is my memory bad?
We didn't "let Millsap go," we offered an extension; he wanted more than we offered and refused. His agent then shopped him around and he finally signed with Atlanta for less than the Jazz offer. He lost nearly a million/year by refusing the extension.
We didn't "let Millsap go," we offered an extension; he wanted more than we offered and refused. His agent then shopped him around and he finally signed with Atlanta for less than the Jazz offer. He lost nearly a million/year by refusing the extension.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
It's really hard to read all your babbling.
So you're saying we haven't tried to sign a good free agent in like 6 or 7 years? Really? Interesting theory. We probably tried to sign a good free agent but nobody wanted us so we overpaid for guys like Thabo, Jerekbo and Udoh ($13+ combined). You're wrong though. We try to sign good guys but we just don't get them (outside of one year getting Okur and Booz).
I've always thought Millsap was a keeper. I also thought Wes Matthews was a keeper. They are multidimensional guys who provide flexibility for matchups.
I have always been against Favors being a starting PF unless we had to. He has never evolved to play PF in today's NBA. I was for trading Favors or Kanter while keeping Millsap because Favors and Kanter had redundant skill sets. We had Millsap and he wanted to stay. We should have kept him and traded Kanter or Favors. Had we done that, we would have had more assets within the organization.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Define good, because we’ve signed good players in the past. When we signed those players mentioned we weren’t looking to sign high costing players.
No he didn’t. He wanted out because he knew he was about to lose his starting job to the young players. It was clear and simple and you could see it in his eyes, body language. I’m not sure what you were seeing in those days.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
@LoPo regardless of what ever it is your arguing about. The jazz decided back then to go young and start over. We had what we called the core4 and the jazz wanted to get them more minutes. They didn’t want other contracts getting in the way of either Kanter and Favors, or Burks and Hayward.
They had made a big blockbuster move that netted them Favors and Kanter. Those two were viewed as the futur fontcout tandem. The jazz wanted minutes also for Burks and Hayward. These 4 were the future and wanted to build through the draft. I’m not sure why we are arguing this, but I laid out the facts about why the jazz did what they did.
They had made a big blockbuster move that netted them Favors and Kanter. Those two were viewed as the futur fontcout tandem. The jazz wanted minutes also for Burks and Hayward. These 4 were the future and wanted to build through the draft. I’m not sure why we are arguing this, but I laid out the facts about why the jazz did what they did.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
I know why they did it. We all do. You're beating a dead horse.
My point, and the point that was made from the beginning which I supported, is that they made the wrong decision letting Millsap go. Of course they went with what they thought was a brighter long term future. Well, they were wrong. Within two years, Kanter was disgruntled and traded for peanuts. Hayward took forever to develop. Burks never developed. Favors has been a center trying to play PF for years.
We let the best player of the entire era leave. The only one who could be argued to be better is Hayward. However, I would say that even though Hayward had the best year between them, Millsap was a better and more impactful Jazz player for longer. We shouldn't have let him go. Hindsight is 20/20, but it's the simple truth.
Now can we please just move on instead of debating the past? Anybody who said our FO made the right move by just letting Millsap leave is flat out wrong. We should have done our best to keep him.
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Point I’m making is Millsap was never going to take us anywhere
Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
Every move a gm makes is a gamble, a crapshoot. Case in point Exum and Kanter didn’t work out, I also believe that had GS not drafted Klay, the jazz would’ve drafted him IMO. If you want to start over, they made the right move letting Al and Sap walk. They gambled on the kids and lost, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be in better shape today. And I seriously doubt we would’ve matched Denver’s 30 million$ per year contract anyways.
LoPo
Well-Known Member
He took us (proven in a Jazz uniform) and would have taken us further than Kanter ever did.
Jack Strop
Well-Known Member
No we didn't. Millsap was let go so Lindsey could "tank" and get a high draft pick. Imagine a trio of Millsap, Favors and Gobert at the 4/5. Jazz had plenty of money to keep Paul. He signed for peanuts with Atlanta because he hung around waiting for the Jazz' FO to make a decision. Ultimately, Lindsey won and our sole prize from all the losing is Dante.
Lakers_Slapper
Well-Known Member
After getting pummeled by the Rockets and missing wide open 3's game after game until being gifted an early exit. YES. We are looking for anything that is an upgrade from 3 point shooters that can't make them even when they are wide open and dared to shoot the 3, only to fail and brick miserably, but still be called a 3 point shooter due to regular season stats that don't mean s*** when you get to the playoffs. Yep. I would take "pretty good" compared to "pretty good in the regular season but can't hit when moments matter" any day of the week. Where do I sign? I wan't a bakers dozen.