What's new
By:

Can someone explain why the Jazz waived Perkins?

They needed to contract to facilitate the trade, but never had any intention of having him play. Saved some money by buying him out, but should have gotten an asset just for taking on the contract to waive him tbh.

Jazz would have been better served having Pleiss come over, but they opted to not start his rookie contract countdown until next season. Perkins would have given the Jazz very little and possibly disrupted the amazing chemistry they've developed. I'd rather they it mess with that. While they might make it to .500, this is still a throw away season. No point in messing with the team dynamic for a one year rental.
 
bezerkus said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4UYpoVX434
Click to expand...


There is some good stuff here, but more than a few are pretty lame. Big guys often jump over smaller players and kick them or hit them in some way. If that was the standard for being a fool then Malone was on the fool first team about every year, not to mention Kobe and his awesome kick-you-in-the-groin-to-draw-a-foul-move. NBA players also regular land on each other diving for the ball, and frankly I don't blame him sitting on Miller. Miller is a dick. Also, if you slipped on a wet spot on the floor you would probably fall down too. There were plenty of legit bone-head plays in this without those that are just part of the game.
 
Perkins would be a great addition. He is no guy, you could expect a double double, but thats not something he plays for. He would bring some toughness, set hard picks and provide veteran leadership in and outside the court.
 
The Jazz might have gotten some benefit from keeping Perkins, but at the end of the day, the Jazz wouldn't have kept him beyond this season. So if they were able to save some money by buying him out, great.
 
Since winning this season really is irrelevant except to build a winning culture in Utah, I see no reason to keep Perkins. He wasn't coming back and they need to instill confidence in these players playing together. Not on a one year rental that may or may not have worked with this locker room.
.
So I see no reason not to let him go.
 
It's the nature of guaranteed contracts that some players will end up getting money that they don't really merit anymore. And, because of trades, sometimes that money will end up being paid by teams that have no interest in that player. In this particular case, the Jazz had no interest in Perkins and his salary was part of price of moving Kanter and to make the salaries match to allow a trade.

I think these questions still illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened in the Kanter trade. Due to the status of his contract, we really weren't trading the player. There is a big difference between trading a player that has several years on a contract and one who will be open for bids at the end of this season. In these scenario, Kanter was likely gone at the end of the season regardless. Everybody knew this. There was no "fair value" to be had in this trade and we agreed to accept OKC's dead weight to make it happen.

We didn't want Perkins. We didn't really have a need for him. He was a bargaining chip and we bought him out.
 
Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.
 
JFFR said:
Thanks for the responses. Maybe I should have been mute specific in my question. I'm trying to figure out the logistics of it. Do we know for sure the Jazz saved money by buying him out? If so, how much money? Does the NBA give any insight to the public on these matters? (obviously the Utah Jazz won't share any info.)

I figure they save money, otherwise why not pull a Raja Bell on him.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Jazz agreed to buy perkins out of his contract minus the minimum salary requirement with which he would have signed with the Cavaliers. The Jazz probably saved about 1 million (prorated I would have imagined).

Jazz save a bit of coin. Young'uns get to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top