How about this draft day trade with Minny?

[utahjazz107]

Minn Recieves:
3rd Overall Pick
12th Overall Pick
Future 2nd Round Pick


Jazz Recieve:
2nd Overall Pick
20th Overall Pick

The Jazz then select Derrick Williams and Marshon Brooks

PG: Harris/Watson
SG: Hayward/Brooks/Bell
SF: Derrick Williams/AK47/Miles
PF: Derrick Favors/Paul Millsap
C: Al Jefferson/Okur

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Minn Recieves:
3rd Overall Pick
12th Overall Pick
Future 2nd Round Pick


Jazz Recieve:
2nd Overall Pick
20th Overall Pick

The Jazz then select Derrick Williams and Marshon Brooks

PG: Harris/Watson
SG: Hayward/Brooks/Bell
SF: Derrick Williams/AK47/Miles
PF: Derrick Favors/Paul Millsap
C: Al Jefferson/Okur

God no.

 

[The Midnight]

I like that fact that we'll be getting DWill_2

But

There's no guarantee we'll get Marshon Brooks. I have a feeling NY might like him at #17. I don't know who else will be left at 20 in this weak draft.

So I'd say no, and let Minny choose between Kanter & DWill_2.

Whoever's left I'd be very happy with.

 

[Twin Towers]

Delete your option for who we will draft after the trade otherwise half of the people will vote no that would normally vote yes. lol

Also I would only do that trade if they took Raja Bell off our hands and we got Flynn or Webster also. I would also only do the trade if Derrick Williams is available at 2.

Huge drop off from 12th to 20th IMO.

Harris - Flynn - Watson
Hayward - Miles
Williams - Miles - Evans
Favors - Millsap
Jefferson - Okur - Fesenko

I would still trade Millsap for a solid wing player or a 5-10 draft pick.

 

[utahjazz107]

Delete your option for who we will draft after the trade otherwise half of the people will vote no that would normally vote yes. lol

Also I would only do that trade if they took Raja Bell off our hands and we got Flynn or Webster also. I would also only do the trade if Derrick Williams is available at 2.

Huge drop off from 12th to 20th IMO.

Harris - Flynn - Watson
Hayward - Miles
Williams - Miles - Evans
Favors - Millsap
Jefferson - Okur - Fesenko

I would still trade Millsap for a solid wing player or a 5-10 draft pick.

Why would you trade your most productive salary player for a 5-10 draft pick? Clownish.

 

[Twin Towers]

Why would you trade your most productive salary player for a 5-10 draft pick? Clownish.

Because he will hinder the development of Favors. Corbin will play Millsap over Favors. Favors and Jefferson are a better combination. Millsap is only better at scoring and that is not a problem when we already have Jefferson.

If we had Dwight Howard or Shaq in his prime or a real center than Millsap would be valuable. Millsap is only good at scoring right now. His rebounding is not good and his lack of length is killing us in multiple areas.
Undersized PF's are easy to find. But they are also not that valuable. If you think you can get a anything above a 5th pick your crazy.

I don't worry about how productive players are. That is how teams continue to lose worrying about stats and basic production. Complementing each other is more important than stats and so called production. Production will come with minutes. We need someone to complement Jefferson down low on defense and Favors does that a lot better. Stopping guys from getting into the paint. Millsap can't do that.

 

[The Midnight]

Delete your option for who we will draft after the trade otherwise half of the people will vote no that would normally vote yes. lol

Also I would only do that trade if they took Raja Bell off our hands and we got Flynn or Webster also. I would also only do the trade if Derrick Williams is available at 2.

So you won't take Irving at #2 if he's available?

 

[Dr. Jones]

^ Good question. I take Irving #1 ... and if he falls, laugh all the way to announcing my pick, "Irving."

 

[vslice02]

I'd do this trade in a heartbeat - not sure why Minny would though.

 

[Twin Towers]

So you won't take Irving at #2 if he's available?

If Williams goes first than I would NOT make the trade that I listed above. I think PG's are overrated and I don't think you need a good point guard to win a championship.

I would stay pat with the 3rd and 12th pick. Because I don't think Irving will fall past 2nd. Either the Wolves will draft Irving or trade the pick so someone else can get Irving.

You look at the Championship teams or Dynasty teams and PG's were not the focal point on those teams. The Big guys or the wing players were. If the PG is the 3rd option that is fine. But not the first or second.

I would take Kanter and Williams over Irving. I love Irving but not more then what Kanter and Williams provide. I am tired of watching the jazz be mediocre with PG's dominating the ball. PG's touch the ball enough with any offense. Let the wing players touch the ball just as much. A Balanced attack is a better way to go.
If we draft a PG this high we will want to put pressure on him to dominate the ball the same way Stockton and Williams did and get 10 assists per game. And if you look at the teams that win championships they rarely had guys who averaged 10 assists per game. And I want to move away from that. I can't remember a championship team in the last 20 years who had that.

 

[MattMan]

Why would you trade your most productive salary player for a 5-10 draft pick? Clownish.

I actually agree with this. Favors in his 2nd year won't be hindered by the presence of Millsap. In fact, I think that they compliment each other nicely....for now. If Favors wants to work on his mid-range game, Millsap would be a great help to him.

The other thing is, we already made it through the painful part of his contract (thanks to the Blazers) and as of right now, he's one of the best bang for the buck PF in the game right now. It would make more sense to trade Big Al (which I don't think we should do yet either) than it would Millsap.

 

[MrBlue]

I'd do this trade in a heartbeat - not sure why Minny would though.

Presumably they would still get whoever they want at 3 and then they move up 8 spots from 20 to 12.

 

[MattMan]

I think PG's are overrated and I don't think you need a good point guard to win a championship.

You look at the Championship teams or Dynasty teams and PG's were not the focal point on those teams. The Big guys or the wing players were. If the PG is the 3rd option that is fine. But not the first or second.

Thank you, couldn't agree more.

The rise of the run-n-gun PG era has brought teams from the bottom/mid level of the league into title contention, but it's the front court that brings the trophy.

Please, don't say Rondo is in the same mix as DWill, Rose and Paul, because he's not. He's a phenom in the sense he's one of the best passing PG's in the league. He knows how to feed the beasts in the paint, and that brings you titles. Not the last second 3 point heroics.

 

[Twin Towers]

I actually agree with this. Favors in his 2nd year won't be hindered by the presence of Millsap. In fact, I think that they compliment each other nicely....for now. If Favors wants to work on his mid-range game, Millsap would be a great help to him.

The other thing is, we already made it through the painful part of his contract (thanks to the Blazers) and as of right now, he's one of the best bang for the buck PF in the game right now. It would make more sense to trade Big Al (which I don't think we should do yet either) than it would Millsap.

I disagree fully. How many prospects do we have to go through before we realize that guys don't develop on the bench. They develop with experience. Guys like Millsap and Matthews were NBA ready and already understood the basics.
Guys like Favors, Fesenko, Miles etc. Who came in early and didn't have much EXPERIENCE as others need more playing time. Expecting them to develop just as fast playing 15 minutes a night is joke.
That is why the Jazz have never developed prospects. We waste them away. And if you think all young players are the same than you need to study basketball more. Not all young players are the same. I hope somebody understands that someday in the Jazz organization. Sloan had a horrible philosophy that was old school. It worked back when nobody came out early but it isn't the same as it used to be. It hasn't been for 10 years.
Favors needs 30 minutes a night next year. And if we keep Millsap that will not happen. He will get 20.

If you wanna learn how to go swimming and Michael Phelps is teaching you everything he knows about how to win races practicing in a pool you still wont' develop as fast as learning what you need and applying it in REAL RACES. And slowing down his experience will only hurt Favors and the Jazz's future.

P.S: That was directed toward everyone in general. Not you MattMan

 

[Twin Towers]

Thank you, couldn't agree more.

The rise of the run-n-gun PG era has brought teams from the bottom/mid level of the league into title contention, but it's the front court that brings the trophy.

Please, don't say Rondo is in the same mix as DWill, Rose and Paul, because he's not. He's a phenom in the sense he's one of the best passing PG's in the league. He knows how to feed the beasts in the paint, and that brings you titles. Not the last second 3 point heroics.

I think the Celtics would be better if Rondo didn't touch the ball so much. If Pierce and Allen and Garnett touched it more like they did when they won a championship than they would be a better team. I am not saying Rondo is a bad player at all. I think Rondo is awesome. But I think Rondo dominates the ball too much.
When defense tightens up in the playoffs and you have 1 guy who sets up 50-70 percent of the offense than you are easier to stop. Balance wins championships.

 

[The Midnight]

If Williams goes first than I would NOT make the trade that I listed above. I think PG's are overrated and I don't think you need a good point guard to win a championship.

Well that's not necessarily true.

Spurs won 3 championships (2003, 2005, 2007) with: Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. (Parker being the Finals MVP in 2007)

So that's: PF, SG and PG.

We have: Favors (PF), Hayward (SG), ......... (PG)

So I would argue that, if Favors, Hayward and Irving can develop together and live up to their potential, IMO, it is possible to build a Championship team that way.

Note: I still think that we should take Kanter at #3. But if there is a way to swing Irving our way, I'd go with that with a slight edge.

 

[Twin Towers]

Well that's not necessarily true.

Spurs won 3 championships (2003, 2005, 2007) with: Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. (Parker being the Finals MVP in 2007)

So that's: PF, SG and PG.

We have: Favors (PF), Hayward (SG), ......... (PG)

So I would argue that, if Favors, Hayward and Irving can develop together and live up to their potential, IMO, it is possible to build a Championship team that way.

Note: I still think that we should take Kanter at #3. But if there is a way to swing Irving our way, I'd go with that with a slight edge.

Parker had a great finals but Duncan and Ginobili got them to that point more so than Parker did IMO. I am just saying we should not build around the PG position.

If you look at those 3 players. And you had to take 1 of them off the team. Who would you take off? This is of course during the 2003 to 2007 years?

Most people will say take Parker off that team. If the Jazz draft irving we will build around him. I promise you that.

 

[The Midnight]

Parker had a great finals but Duncan and Ginobili got them to that point more so than Parker did IMO. I am just saying we should not build around the PG position.

If you look at those 3 players. And you had to take 1 of them off the team. Who would you take off? This is of course during the 2003 to 2007 years?

Most people will say take Parker off that team. If the Jazz draft irving we will build around him. I promise you that.

So you think that by drafting Irving we'll get rid of either Favors of Hayward?

I don't think that's likely. It's more likely we'll build around Favors, Hayward and Irving as a trio, and add players around that.

 

[Twin Towers]

So you think that by drafting Irving we'll get rid of either Favors of Hayward?

I don't think that's likely. It's more likely we'll build around Favors, Hayward and Irving as a trio, and add players around that.

No my point to saying getting rid of parker was saying he wasn't as valuable as Duncan or Ginolbi.

I don't think we will get rid of Favors or Hayward.

My point is if we draft Irving I think our offense will run through Irving 50-70 percent of the time just like it did with Stockton and Williams. Which kills us during the playoffs and against contenders.

Don't get me wrong I like Irving. I think he is a complete point guard. Not an amazing athlete but does everything really well and he is patient which is more important than athleticism IMO. That stutter step is what good point guards do. But I am afraid Irving will get the ball twice as much as Hayward and we will turn Hayward into a role player rather than a prominent part of the offense?
Is that making sense? Just looking at the history of the Jazz's offense.

 

[The Midnight]

My point is if we draft Irving I think our offense will run through Irving 50-70 percent of the time just like it did with Stockton and Williams. Which kills us during the playoffs and against contenders.

Don't get me wrong I like Irving. I think he is a complete point guard. Not an amazing athlete but does everything really well and he is patient which is more important than athleticism IMO. That stutter step is what good point guards do. But I am afraid Irving will get the ball twice as much as Hayward and we will turn Hayward into a role player rather than a prominent part of the offense?
Is that making sense? Just looking at the history of the Jazz's offense.

Yeah I hear what you're saying.

But I think you've got to then give the coaching staff some credit and let them do their job.

Irving is an above average shooter at PG and Hayward is an above average passer at SG IMO.

Don't you think they'll run plays that involve Hayward a lot more as the ball handler but still utilising Irving's shooting ability?

BPA is what we keep hearing and I think if we get Irving at #2, you'd have to take him.