Following 2016 potential draftees

[Thee Jazz Fan]

I missed this one.
Why would trading Hayward mean starting all over?

A line-up of
Exum
Hood
Bazemore
Favors
Gobert

With burks, Mack, lyles, jakob puertle (12 pick), murray/heild/chriss/dunn (#3 pick) makes the playoffs imo.

Plus tons of cap space and tons of future picks still.

What I mean is we are where we were at best and more then likely leaves us starless unless I'm right about Exum, and there's still a better then decent chance we get worse by trading Hayward. If u want a better chance at a star u need to get rid of Favors and the rest of the gang for a high pick in the loaded 17 draft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

What I mean is we are where we were at best and more then likely leaves us starless unless I'm right about Exum, and there's still a better then decent chance we get worse by trading Hayward. If u want a better chance at a star u need to get rid of Favors and the rest of the gang for a high pick in the loaded 17 draft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But see I think there is a chance there is a star at #3.
Lots of teams passed up dirk, Paul pierce, tony parker, and many many others.
We don't know who will be stars from this draft or not but most drafts have some stars in it and more picks gives us a better chance to find that star. And we could even use the #3 and #12 plus others picks or whatever to try to get a top pick next year.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I do like Ellenson's long term ability to shoot the ball. Skal and Sabonis can shoot it too though.

Skal is in a truly elite class of big men that have a feathery touch.
But he's weak.

I'm not saying who the better prospect is, but I am very comfortable who the best shooter is.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Ok but answer this question. Does the below lineup/scenario make the playoffs and have a really really bright future?

Exum
Hood
Bazemore
Favors
Gobert

With burks, Mack, lyles, jakob puertle (12 pick), murray/heild/chriss/dunn (#3 pick)

Plus tons of cap space and tons of future picks still.

If the answer is yes, then maybe the risk of losing Hayward isn't even that big a deal anyway.

I say that roster looks really good and has a very bright future.

I thought your whole argument was getting a star?? This lineup maybe, maybe doesn't end up better then the current lineup. I guess I view Hayward as really good even if he isn't a star. I also don't view such players as DeRozen as stars and I value Hayward as the Superior player. I'd still hate to lose a talent like Hayward and am willing to trust DL with getting the best player possible at 12 like last year. I feel Hayward would be an allstar already had he been in a better situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

[MENTION=1066]Thee jazz fan[/MENTION]

I see it like this: losing Hayward doesn't make us much worse next year and going forward. We replace him with #3 and #12 and a free agent. Hell we might even be better.
Getting that #3 pick give us a chance, however small, at getting a star though.

So basically it's low risk, and possibly a high reward.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

But see I think there is a chance there is a star at #3.
Lots of teams passed up dirk, Paul pierce, tony parker, and many many others.
We don't know who will be stars from this draft or not but most drafts have some stars in it and more picks gives us a better chance to find that star. And we could even use the #3 and #12 plus others picks or whatever to try to get a top pick next year.

I definitely see the appeal to what you are saying, but I think I view Hayward a little more then u do. I want a little more then the third pick in this draft. I'm not sure there's a big enough difference in the 3rd pick and the 12th pick to justify getting rid of Hayward.

It's also possible that u are right and I'm wrong, but who knows. A few days ago I told dr. Jones that I felt that over the years he had been objective as far as UK players go, but felt he wasn't with Murray. He wrote in a PM to me that if I felt he was objective as far as his guys go then why not Murray.

It's interesting and food for thought. I trust and respect the doc, but my own mind I can't discount what I see. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. I will say I was about the only one that wanted Lyles or even had any interest in the Jazz picking him and that turned out good. Lol as much as I like Dr. Jones I like me more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

[MENTION=1066]Thee jazz fan[/MENTION]

I see it like this: losing Hayward doesn't make is much worse next year and going forward. We replace him with #3 and #12 and a free agent. Hell we might even be better.
Getting that #3 pick give us a chance, however small, at getting a star though.

So basically it's low risk, and possibly a high reward.

I admit as much in my last post, but Hayward is really good IMO and there's still a chance we get very little from pick 12 and just a decent player with pick 3. Still it makes me think but then hang up the phone if the C's were the ones calling me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr. Jones]

I definitely see the appeal to what you are saying, but I think I view Hayward a little more then u do. I want a little more then the third pick in this draft. I'm not sure there's a big enough difference in the 3rd pick and the 12th pick to justify getting rid of Hayward.

It's also possible that u are right and I'm wrong, but who knows. A few days ago I told dr. Jones that I felt that over the years he had been objective as far as UK players go, but felt he wasn't with Murray. He wrote in a PM to me that if I felt he was objective as far as his guys go then why not Murray.

It's interesting and food for thought. I trust and respect the doc, but my own mind I can't discount what I see. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. I will say I was about the only one that wanted Lyles or even had any interest in the Jazz picking him and that turned out good. Lol as much as I like Dr. Jones I like me more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like you more too.

 

[fishonjazz]

I admit as much in my last post, but Hayward is really good IMO and there's still a chance we get very little from pick 12 and just a decent player with pick 3. Still it makes me think but then hang up the phone if the C's were the ones calling me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough.
And I don't know if you saw one of my posts from yesterday but I said that I would be fine with the jazz maxing Hayward.
We would still have a young cheap team full of good players with lots of future picks.

I believe that is the case whether you trade or keep him.

 

[BENTLEY]

Looking at the entire team. We have a high profile player at every starting position and two good players at almost every position. This is a very deal team top to bottom. I'm just a bit confused how this isn't one of the deapest teams in the NBA.

We agree the Jazz HAVE DEPTH. Where's the confusion? Is it that in spite of the depth, the Jazz are a lottery team yet again?

I'll say it again: Jazz need a star.

After trading Hayward, the Jazz will still have depth (but hopefully will gain a star to take over games).

 

[Miggs]

Jazz bench was bad last year. It got worse with the loss of Exum and Burks. The bright spot was Lyles but the Jazz 's bench will be better with the return Exum and Burk because now Mack goes to the bench which will add some scoring ability.

Mack offers scoring ability? He's awful offensively.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Catchall mock---

Phi: Simmons (franchise player)
LAL: Ingram (alpha scorer at the wing)
Bos: Murray (alpha scorer in the backcourt)
Phx: Bender (versatile potential mismatch)
Min: Chriss (upside PF next to Towns and Wiggins)
NOL: Dunn (replacement for J'rue Holliday)
Den: Brown (too much potential to pass on, Skal too risky. Ellenson could go here.)
Sac: Hield (too good a shooter to pass on)
Tor: Poeltl (rare opportunity to get a legit 5)
Mil: Baldwin (need a 2-way PG, could take Ellenson)
Orl: Richardson (Interesting pick here. They'd like to upgrade at the PG and would like a rim-protecting 5, but Murray and Skal are too risky to pass on Richardson)
Uta: Ellenson (Jazz try to move up, but don't; they choose btw Skal and Ellenson)
Phx: Skal (Upside pick, might trade given that they took Bender)
Chi: Korkmaz or D. Jackson (solid player at a position of need)