What's new
By:

Go GET Teague

fishonjazz said:
I don't think cake bakers advocated doing nothing... I think we just didn't want to add high priced free agents that were not any better than what we already had at a position of strength.

If it was being proposed to trade Burks and burke for the #4 pick, get carroll in free agency, and try to find a 3rd point guard (green, cotton) then I think cake bakers would have been open to it.

All I ever heard was go get green/carroll/matthews. That's it.
If the plan is to simply add expensive talent at positions that we are strong at then why not deandre and millsap? After all favors and Gobert were our only good bigs (2 players) where our wings had three good players. And favors and Gobert are really both more of 5's.

Yet I never heard much talk of going after expensive bigs. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I would have gone after certain high priced guys with the understanding that they have options and probably say no, but then moved to the others... it was less about cake and chemistry to me and more about acquiring talent for an asset that was going to go away. Like a $100 coupon that expires... I feel like we just said we don't need anymore stuff that coupon can buy so why go to the store.
 
fishonjazz said:
You could play millsap at 3 or 4.

How expensive was crowder? Would he be fine if he were the 4th wing playing limited minutes? If so then the cake bakers would not have objected
Click to expand...

I think some folks were talking about Millman based on DJ Jody Wojornoski's report that the Jazz were interested. I know I was still unsettled on the wing because of Hood's injury issues and Burks coming back from an injury and needing to make adjustments.

Crowder was like $8M a year which people kind of raised eyebrows at but now looks like an effing steal. To be fair I wasn't sure he was a deadly enough shooter/offensive player to do what he is doing now. But Jonas at 2 years 5.8M is robbery. I thought he'd get at least mid level. Even Bellinelli would have been a good add for us that I could see us completing.

If the cake bakkers are not advocating the "just do nothing" strategy then I'm fine with that, but I also would have been fine signing the expensive guy and figuring it out.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I would have gone after certain high priced guys with the understanding that they have options and probably say no, but then moved to the others... it was less about cake and chemistry to me and more about acquiring talent for an asset that was going to go away. Like a $100 coupon that expires... I feel like we just said we don't need anymore stuff that coupon can buy so why go to the store.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. Well I think that some posters here think that the cake bakers were like "we want to do absolutely nothing to this team no matter what." That's not true. We wanted to do things that made sense.

I doubt it's common practice for teams to look at their roster and say "hmm, we have three really good wings and that is our strongest position so let's add another wing that costs allot of money that isn't really any better than the three we already have." Which is what we would have been doing with additions of carroll, green, or matthews.

Ingles is the perfect 4th wing. Injuries screwed that up. We can't have 4 great expensive wings, 4 great expensive point guards, and 4 great expensive bigs.

It didn't make sense to add an expensive player at a position of strength.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
, but I also would have been fine signing the expensive guy and figuring it out.
Click to expand...

Of course you would, you don't own or run the team.

Is it common for teams to spend allot of money on guys that are not any better than what they already have at a position of strength?

If so can you provide some examples?

Do teams often spend 10-15 million dollars on their 4th wing?
 
fishonjazz said:
Of course you would, you don't own or run the team.

Is it common for teams to spend allot of money on guys that are not any better than what they already have at a position of strength?

If so can you provide some examples?

Do teams often spend 10-15 million dollars on their 4th wing?
Click to expand...

Some of those guys would have been our second wing. Owners of sports franchises don't make rational business decisions... The cavs gave mega millions to Thompson to be a backup but now he's starting. OKC paid the max for Kanter.

As an owner I hope I'd be able to say we are paying two guys a lot of money... If we need to we can trade one to meet another need down the road but if I do nothing then that asset is gone. I would also understand you'd have to pay to have the privledge of that asset and that it may end up underutilized at least for a time.

I did want to offer Middleton the max... He took less from Mil. And that guy could have started at three positions. If we had him and wanted to move burks for other things we could do that. Or if a game changer became available and we had to move hood or Hayward then we'd have the other positions covered.
 
fishonjazz said:
Of course you would, you don't own or run the team.

Is it common for teams to spend allot of money on guys that are not any better than what they already have at a position of strength?

If so can you provide some examples?

Do teams often spend 10-15 million dollars on their 4th wing?
Click to expand...

Also, side note... I'd be the best owner and Fish is still one of my favorite posters.
 
Jody Genessy ‏@DJJazzyJody 10m10 minutes ago
Jazz coach Quin Snyder on swirling trade talk: "I really like our group so much, so it’s easy for me to stay focused on the present."
Click to expand...

Quin's way of saying "Yes, get Teague you bitch *** Lindsey". There is no way we arent in some sort of discussion about Teague and Quin isn't aware, because he would be heavily inquired about Teague since he use to coach him.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
If we had him and wanted to move burks for other things we could do that. Or if a game changer became available and we had to move hood or Hayward then we'd have the other positions covered.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this notion that if there is a logjam you can simply trade a guy. I don't think it's that easy. Especially if you want good value back.

I figure every team in the league has a couple of guys that they would like to move yet how many actual trades go down each year? Maybe 5 or so? (I honestly have no idea if I'm even in the ball park here)

How many trades have the jazz made in the last 10 years?

I don't think it's always that easy to simply trade a guy if there is a logjam.... Unless you want a second rounder back in exchange
 
Teague is averaging 5.5 ast this season by the way.

We need a Lowry level pg at minimum, PLUS another dominant piece.
 
fishonjazz said:
I disagree with this notion that if there is a logjam you can simply trade a guy. I don't think it's that easy. Especially if you want good value back.

I figure every team in the league has a couple of guys that they would like to move yet how many actual trades go down each year? Maybe 5 or so? (I honestly have no idea if I'm even in the ball park here)

How many trades have the jazz made in the last 10 years?

I don't think it's always that easy to simply trade a guy if there is a logjam.... Unless you want a second rounder back in exchange
Click to expand...

Monta for Bogut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top