What's new
By:
Filters

Competing while allowing Dante Exum to develop

K

karl malone

Well-Known Member
Based on our recent success, unlike the last few years, competing (rather than development) will clearly be our first priority next season. After that, developing our PG of the future should be the second priority, as his long-term development is likely to be the determining factor in whether we are a playoff caliber team or championship caliber team in the future. While I personally would consider trading him (+ a reasonable asset or 2) for a potentially elite scorer such as Russell (I know, that is far from a guarantee), strictly due to fit & developmental timeline rather than long-term potential, I think QS & DL value his defense, character, & work ethic too highly to move on from him in their long-term plans before seeing exactly what they have, which could take as long as 4-5 years to happen (2-3 to be starting caliber/4-5 to be star caliber).

Question #1: How do we compete while still developing Exum?
Answer: Replace him with a starting quality player at PG & have him be the primary backup.

Hopefully this type of move wouldn't hurt his confidence (last thing we need). I doubt it would as he seems to be a high character player willing to do what is best for the team.

Question #2: Who replaces him?
Answer: Who ever the FA/trade market dictates.

Dragic & Rondo are both out of our price range. If Jackson & Knight aren't out of our price range also (which they likely are & would be matched as RFA's anyways if not) they would require too much of a financial & long-term commitment to essentially be a placeholder until Exum is ready to start (unless of course we envision one of them being a good fit alongside Dante- which I doubt due to Exum's immense potential mostly being tied to him playing the point). Beverley is a similar case as the other 2 due to the large financial commitment it would likely take to get HOU to not match (though I could be wrong as they may target an impact 1 such as the names mentioned prior- I believe they will have $ to spend, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with their current cap situation). That would leave names such as Lin, Nelson, & Cole (as well as a few other decent vets). I'm not sure Utah will elect to go with one of these guys, as I believe they will aim higher than those type of role players. This leads me to believe that they might consider going with a timeshare of Burks & Exum at PG. They could start Burks, use Hayward as the primary ballhandler, & give Exum more playing time than he would typically receive in a traditional backup role (with Burks playing at his natural 2 guard position for much of the game). This would allow them to sign a FA SG/SF to start. If this is what they decide to do, that would lead to:

Question #3: What to do with Trey Burke?
Answer: Attempt to package him & additional assets to acquire someone who could potentially project in our future starting 5 alongside Exum, Hayward, Favors, & Gobert. Due to the offensive limitations (particularly 3 pt shooting) & lack of a #1 scorer on this team, other than Russell (which is a pipedream at this point), Mario Hezonja seems to be the only other prospect in this draft that has the potential to fill both of those voids.

Question #4: Could a lineup of . . .

(Plan A)

Burks/Exum/Neto
Matthews/Burks/Hood
Hayward/Hezonja/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss

or

(Plan B)

Burks/Exum/Neto
Hayward/Burks/Hood
Carroll/Hezonja/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss

. . . contend for the playoffs next year & could a future lineup of . . .

Exum/Backup PG (&/or) Neto
Hezonja/Burks
Hayward/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss
(+ whichever FA we signed/future draft picks)

. . . contend for a championship in the future?

Obviously there are other FA wing options out there, so maybe we go in a different direction depending on pricetags & contract lengths required to get them (Matthews, Middleton, Carroll, D.Green, etc) to sign.

So I guess the real question is: do you think a team (surrounded by the right pieces) can compete for a playoff spot, with Burks & Exum primarily running the point?

If the answer is yes, the next question would be: who are those right pieces to surround them with & how do we obtain them?
 
Last edited:
For the record, if we were to go this route, I would imagine great 3 pt shooting would be a requirement in whomever we signed to start at the 2/3. Also, whether or not Burks can play the 1 sufficiently enough (for 24-28 MPG) to start is the key.
 
Burks is not a PG. Dante will (in all likelihood) be the starting PG from here on out. Regardless of who the Jazz draft/sign, they have their Core (Gobert, Favors, Hayward and Exum) in place. They will sort out Burks role this offseason and try to add depth throughout. Dante has to get bigger and better. They're not taking him out of the lineup for anything short of a clear upgrade at the position (Rondo/Teague/Dragic, etc.)

Dante Exum is already a very, very good (potentially elite) defender. They're not going to take him out of the lineup until someone else beats him out for the job. I expect them to focus on wringing more offense out of the Core4 plus whoever else starts at the wing, while really trying to boost the quality and experience of the bench. A guy like Lin or Carroll could be valuable in the rotation, depending on their specific roles.
 
So we have gone and won 8 out of the last 10 with Dante as the starting PG and you want to move him to the bench next year? I think he is developing just fine by playing against the best players on the planet and holding his own on the defensive end. The offense well come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I HIGHLY doubt we have any starter at PG than Exum next year. His defense and potential is too good. We can win with him only being active on one end of the court, and we can beat really good teams doing so. There is no need to look for a starter for the PG spot because whoever we bring in might be a better offensive player but they won't be a better defender.

Our starting five will contain Exum, Hayward, Favors and Gobert for the next 3 years.
 
I don't think we need a PG next season. Best stick with Exum/Burke. Starting Exum has not really hurt us this season, and we won't be championship contenders next season. I fully expect Exum to show improvement next year, and it is good to let him gain the experience of a serious playoffs run while playing 25ish mpg.
 
Not sure why everyone is trying to trade Trey Burke. Not every draft pick needs to be a starter or a superstar. He is still on his rookie contract and he has proven that he doesn't need to be a starter to be effective. Every team needs a solid back-up PG and a potentially volume scorer off the bench and he is both. Plus, if he continues to improve as a player and in his bench role, he will be a valuable member of the team and possibly an affordable piece. Maybe he re-signs for deal in the range of Jamal Crawford, Lou Williams, or JR Smith, around 4 years/ $22m-$25m, which would be a reasonable contract for the role.
 
Exum/Backup PG (&/or) Neto
Hezonja/Burks
Hayward/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss

--

Yes, I think that team could contend as long as Mario and Exum develop like we hope they will.
 
Exum is fine starting. He is already a top 10 defender at the PG position. Offensively Hayward does most of the ball handling anyway.


Just let Exum grow organically the way he's been doing the last 10 games.
 
Siro said:
I don't think we need a PG next season. Best stick with Exum/Burke. Starting Exum has not really hurt us this season, and we won't be championship contenders next season. I fully expect Exum to show improvement next year, and it is good to let him gain the experience of a serious playoffs run while playing 25ish mpg.
Click to expand...

And great players often develop rapidly (like Gobert).

I don't necessarily agree with the narrative that Exum will take several years to start living up to the hype. He could very well make a massive leap in his development next year or the year after, and I think continuing to let him start will only help; he's survived being thrown in the fire thus far, which is a fantastic sign.
 
Jeffrey32 said:
Not sure why everyone is trying to trade Trey Burke. Not every draft pick needs to be a starter or a superstar. He is still on his rookie contract and he has proven that he doesn't need to be a starter to be effective. Every team needs a solid back-up PG and a potentially volume scorer off the bench and he is both. Plus, if he continues to improve as a player and in his bench role, he will be a valuable member of the team and possibly an affordable piece. Maybe he re-signs for deal in the range of Jamal Crawford, Lou Williams, or JR Smith, around 4 years/ $22m-$25m, which would be a reasonable contract for the role.
Click to expand...

I would trade Burke for one of two reasons:

1 - We can trade him, a bench PG, for a starter (i.e., Snell). That's a no brainer.

2 - He doesn't mesh with Burks. I think Burks is better than he is, and I think Burks will be the leader of the bench. So, if one doesn't mesh with the other, Burke goes.
 
I am more and more warming up to the idea of starting Burks as a PG. It's not like Exum is playing like a PG. Burks is the better shooter and finisher. Hayward is going to be the primary ballhandler again next year anyway.
 
green said:
I would trade Burke for one of two reasons:

1 - We can trade him, a bench PG, for a starter (i.e., Snell). That's a no brainer.

2 - He doesn't mesh with Burks. I think Burks is better than he is, and I think Burks will be the leader of the bench. So, if one doesn't mesh with the other, Burke goes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whether Burke/Burks will mesh well off the bench together hasn't really been discussed at any point (that I'm aware of anyway). Definitely something that the FO needs to figure out.
 
We are competing with Exum at the point guard position right now. Look at our record since he became the starter, we are doing pretty well.

An off season of hard work and Exum is going to make a jump offensively next year while continuing to improve his defense, which is already pretty good. Exum has shown that when the coaching staff lets him run pick and rolls and even isos he is capable of getting to the paint and making good decisions. His passing is good and when he decides to shoot it is because it is the right choice. He just needs to get stronger and more confident in his floaters and he will be great. Not sure he will ever be a good pull up mid range jump shooter but I dont think that is necessary for him to be good. Frankly the NBA and our team is trying to avoid mid range jump shots. He hits his open threes when set which is a huge plus for this team. He will hit his threes at a decent percentage next year, my guess is high 30's for the season.
 
No free agent point guard is going to sign with the Jazz with the threat of Exum being the eventual long term starter. Burke is decent enough and improving and has fully accepted the backup role. Until there is a big problem it will be difficult to move Burke. Not really convinced that Neto is much of anything, but that is your plan B should Burke need to be moved or we get a good offer for him. . .
 
Ben10 said:
So we have gone and won 8 out of the last 10 with Dante as the starting PG and you want to move him to the bench next year? I think he is developing just fine by playing against the best players on the plant and holding his own on the defensive end. The offense well come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lol the best players on the plant.
 
You guys are probably correct, just trying to come up with reasonable alternatives as I feel it would be somewhat of a waste to start a project 19/20 yr old PG alongside 3 guys who are all capable of putting up all-star caliber #'s next year. By the time Exum is beginning to truly tap into all of that potential, Hayward/Favors/Gobert will likely be due significant raises. I just think that we have the opportunity to have our cake & eat it too by competing now while still projecting to have an elite starting 5 in the future (given that we somehow acquire that 5th missing piece- maybe Hezonja). I know we have been winning recently (& against playoff caliber teams at that) on the strength of our defense, in no small part to Dante, but I think the offensive improvement that we would gain by inserting an offensively competent player at the 1 would outweigh the defense that would be lost in such a move. I know Burks is not a PG, I just feel that Hayward would be enough to offset his deficiencies at the point. Also, it's not that I want to get rid of Burke, I just don't think there would be enough mins to go around between him & Exum without 1 of them starting or Exum getting a bulk of his playing time at the 2 (which is not be the position we should be looking to develop him at). With most of the obvious options having already been discussed thouroghly, I just wanted to throw out something different. Hayward, Favors, Gobert all strike me as loyal guys, but they also all strike me as guys who will accept nothing less than being on a championship contending team (especially Hayward & Gobert- who is clearly the key to our future. If we stick with Exum as our starting PG from here on out, we could essentially be betting our future squarely on his development. Also, I don't think a slightly reduced role would do much, if anything, to disrupt Exum's development (ie: Trey Burke moving to the bench).
 
karl malone said:
Based on our recent success, unlike the last few years, competing (rather than development) will clearly be our first priority next season. After that, developing our PG of the future should be the second priority, as his long-term development is likely to be the determining factor in whether we are a playoff caliber team or championship caliber team in the future. While I personally would consider trading him (+ a reasonable asset or 2) for a potentially elite scorer such as Russell (I know, that is far from a guarantee), strictly due to fit & developmental timeline rather than long-term potential, I think QS & DL value his defense, character, & work ethic too highly to move on from him in their long-term plans before seeing exactly what they have, which could take as long as 4-5 years to happen (2-3 to be starting caliber/4-5 to be star caliber).

Question #1: How do we compete while still developing Exum?
Answer: Replace him with a starting quality player at PG & have him be the primary backup.

Hopefully this type of move wouldn't hurt his confidence (last thing we need). I doubt it would as he seems to be a high character player willing to do what is best for the team.

Question #2: Who replaces him?
Answer: Who ever the FA/trade market dictates.

Dragic & Rondo are both out of our price range. If Jackson & Knight aren't out of our price range also (which they likely are & would be matched as RFA's anyways if not) they would require too much of a financial & long-term commitment to essentially be a placeholder until Exum is ready to start (unless of course we envision one of them being a good fit alongside Dante- which I doubt due to Exum's immense potential mostly being tied to him playing the point). Beverley is a similar case as the other 2 due to the large financial commitment it would likely take to get HOU to not match (though I could be wrong as they may target an impact 1 such as the names mentioned prior- I believe they will have $ to spend, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with their current cap situation). That would leave names such as Lin, Nelson, & Cole (as well as a few other decent vets). I'm not sure Utah will elect to go with one of these guys, as I believe they will aim higher than those type of role players. This leads me to believe that they might consider going with a timeshare of Burks & Exum at PG. They could start Burks, use Hayward as the primary ballhandler, & give Exum more playing time than he would typically receive in a traditional backup role (with Burks playing at his natural 2 guard position for much of the game). This would allow them to sign a FA SG/SF to start. If this is what they decide to do, that would lead to:

Question #3: What to do with Trey Burke?
Answer: Attempt to package him & additional assets to acquire someone who could potentially project in our future starting 5 alongside Exum, Hayward, Favors, & Gobert. Due to the offensive limitations (particularly 3 pt shooting) & lack of a #1 scorer on this team, other than Russell (which is a pipedream at this point), Mario Hezonja seems to be the only other prospect in this draft that has the potential to fill both of those voids.

Question #4: Could a lineup of . . .

(Plan A)

Burks/Exum/Neto
Matthews/Burks/Hood
Hayward/Hezonja/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss

or

(Plan B)

Burks/Exum/Neto
Hayward/Burks/Hood
Carroll/Hezonja/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss

. . . contend for the playoffs next year & could a future lineup of . . .

Exum/Backup PG (&/or) Neto
Hezonja/Burks
Hayward/Hood
Favors/Booker
Gobert/Tomic (&/or) Pleiss
(+ whichever FA we signed/future draft picks)

. . . contend for a championship in the future?

Obviously there are other FA wing options out there, so maybe we go in a different direction depending on pricetags & contract lengths required to get them (Matthews, Middleton, Carroll, D.Green, etc) to sign.

So I guess the real question is: do you think a team (surrounded by the right pieces) can compete for a playoff spot, with Burks & Exum primarily running the point?

If the answer is yes, the next question would be: who are those right pieces to surround them with & how do we obtain them?
Click to expand...



tl.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top