♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I disagree. We need depth on the wing and we don't necessarily need another big other than injury insurance. We need more shooters more than we need another big.
DOL on 1280--The Consequences of Standing Pat
- Thread starter mellow
- Start date
I disagree. We need depth on the wing and we don't necessarily need another big other than injury insurance. We need more shooters more than we need another big.
I would much rather the Jazz draft a 3 and d player instead of paying max or near max to Carroll and sign a serviceable big man in FA to be our back up center. We can get one of those in FA for a reasonable deal and will be better than a big man we can draft next year. Most bigs are not helpful for a few years let along their rookie year. Although if Jazz see potential in one of the bigs and want to let him develop than we could draft one and stand pat since we have plenty of depth at the wing. Hayward, Hood, Burk, Milsap and Ingles are more than enough for us at wing.
I also would much rather keep Trey. He is going to be better this year. It is pretty rare a PG doesnt make a big jump going into year three. Wait until his value is higher or more likely he will be a perfect backup PG next season. People want to dump him for a second round pick or a late first. He is worth more than that. Jazzfanz have to hate someone though.
How about a big who can shoot and space the floor? Kaminsky, Turner, Looney?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Do the Jazz improve more by upgrading Ingles in our wing rotation or Booker in our big rotation? I'm actually ok with booker being a part of the rotation for the next few years. If I was DL I would certainly try and bring him back for an additional 3-4 year on a reasonable deal. I'm less enthusiastic about Ingles and baby Sap. I think we can get immediate and long term improvement by upgrading there.
The idea that all this team needs is another big is flawed imo. That doesn't mean that I am opposed to getting another big or upgrading if that's the bpa in the draft or we get a good trade offer. It just isn't our only need or even our most pressing one.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Neither one of those dudes were part of the rotation.
So we are going to upgrade guys that only played garbage mins? That is our pressing need?
Also: I feel like you have missed the basic context of my post by maybe not reading the post it was in response to. I think that if you read that post my post will make perfect sense to you. At least it should.
Think of the way the season started, not the way it finished. The regular rotation was 4 bigs - Enes, Favors, Gobert, Booker... The reason Cooley and Evans played less is because they were bad, not because we didn't need another big. Ideally we would have at least 4 bigs that are playable at any given moment. I would say Evans and Cooley are not playable if we want to win games in the long run.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I'll do it for you.
Now go back and reread the last page. Keep your eyes peeled for statements like "more than" and words like "necessarily".
You are arguing with yourself now. I have already acknowledged that we need someone else at least for injury insurance. I have further said that if we get a better opportunity to upgrade a big than another position that we should do it. Do you agree with tfivas' statement? Does mine make a little more sense to you now? Do you understand how less than/more than works?
Yah, it makes sense as a whole. I wasn't arguing your larger point... I was just responding to specific sub-points, that I felt needed addressing. If we are talking larger picture I would agree that if we have 2 prospects with about the same grade on our board(a wing and a big) I would choose to upgrade the wing through the draft.
I think we're all agreeing?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
They improve more by upgrading Booker.
Why? Because they've already replaced Ingles in the rotation with Alec Burks. But we are SCREWED if a big goes down. Then what do we do? Play Cooley or Motum (or Pleiss) 30+ mins.?
If a wing goes down, we have Ingles and Millsap as the deep backups. Both are serviceable and we could survive a short-term injury to Hood, Hayward or Burks. Gobert aside, it is generally MUCH harder to find a serviceable big late in the draft and MUCH easier to find a wing. And the same holds true for free agency where bigs who can simply walk and chew gum at the same time command a king's ransom.
Stop right there. With Burks and Hood healthy, the perimeter play is improved immeasurably. Furthermore, grabbing a known commodity that addresses an area of need is the best way to address it. The Jazz need a player exactly like Carroll and this is pretty much their last chance to splurge. And he happens to have played here, worked with some of our coaches, and even goes out of his way to show love to the fans here. It's too perfect.
On your other point, bigs don't take any longer to develop than anyone else. Bigs that are good are also had at a premium on the market and the Jazz aren't much of a destination anyway (or so it is said). Lastly, the nature of what big men do is changing RIGHT NOW and this draft's crop exemplifies that more than any other. If the Jazz want to find a longterm solution to the big rotation and they want him to space the floor, there is no better opportunity than this draft. Otherwise, what options are they left with? Developing Booker as a shooter? Prying Olynyk from the Celtics (who is not great but who is also playing for a team that has no reason to get rid of him)? True bigs that space the floor aren't the rarest thing in the world, but they're still pretty rare, everyone (smart) wants one, and no one wants to part with one. A true big that spaces the floor AND plays + D is like a unicorn.
Ultimately, the Jazz need more spacing, more perimeter D, and a backup big. However they want to address those things, fine, but my stance on how to do that makes the most sense to me.