What's new
By:

Jazz after both Knight and Kanter

MrBlue said:
That is not a terrible trade for either team is it? 12 and Millsap for 5 seems okay to me. Seems like a great trade for the Jazz. Even though I think that Millsap is the one big we have that fits with all of the other bigs on the team. You can play him with Jefferson or Favors and he compliments both of them. I don't know if a Favors/Jefferson tandem would be very effective offensively.
Click to expand...

Sap doesn't compliment Big Al in my eyes. They are too much alike. Both need the ball, both can't or won't defend, both are undersized.
Two offensive players don't compliment each other well. One needs to be the defender, the interior defensive force, neither are.

Sap and Favors are a better pair.
 
Revolution 9 said:
Sap doesn't compliment Big Al in my eyes. They are too much alike. Both need the ball, both can't or won't defend, both are undersized.
Two offensive players don't compliment each other well. One needs to be the defender, the interior defensive force, neither are.

Sap and Favors are a better pair.
Click to expand...


I agree with all but the last part. I think Jefferson and Favors are a better pair. Millsap makes the lineup still undersized. Favors and Jefferson is a good long lineup with a defender and an offensive player. Sap and Favors is definitely better than Sap and Jefferson who don't compliment each other at all on the floor.
 
shadler said:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...valiers-choice-could-spark-jazz-raptors-trade
Click to expand...

If this happens, you can all thank Margo for tipping you off on 5/25:

margodydek said:
Not sure if I explained it right, but here's an example. Not sure if Toronto got a TPE for Bosh, but say they did. We trade #12 and Al to them for the #5. We get Kanter or DWill at #3 and at #5 we take Knight or Walker. Does anyone have KOC's digits? I think I'm on to something here.
Click to expand...
 
vslice02 said:
The concept of having your top 5-7 guys be young players under 25 may look good on paper but has never worked.
Establish your core for the future (Favors, Hayward, #3 pick, potentially '12 GS Pick) and if you have a couple guys in their early 30's after them that's fine.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS!!!!

I'd consider this trade if the outgoing piece was Harris and we were getting a player better than Kleiza. This is a fat NO as it is currently drawn-up.
 
I don't know if its some psychological coping strategy I've developed as a result of all the change with the Jazz organization, but I just don't see the Jazz trading Millsap. He's exactly the type of veteran you want as the foundation for a core of young guys: crafty, hard-working, stable.

Also, I don't see the Jazz giving up Jefferson and #12 for Brandon Knight and bloody Kleiza. That is way too little. If I were calling the shots I'd be shopping Al, but I'd be expecting to get much more of a sure thing at the wing, e.g. Granger, K. Martin, Paul George (more potential in the latter, but I'd pull the **** out of that trigger). But, again, my gut is telling me that Al isn't going anywhere this offseason. My hope is he at least learns to develop a solid two-man game with the primary ball handler (instead of his blackhole style) and his rebounding fundamentals improve. I'd also like the coaches to distribute his minutes differently than they did last year: I'd like to see 30-50% of his minutes going against the opposing teams' second units. This would allow the Jazz greater control of the tempo and would require less ground-breaking changes from Al. If these things could happen, then I'll make my peace with his staying.

As for Harris, well, I don't see Toronto giving up the rights to Knight for Harris + #12. And, yeah, I'd be shopping the hell out of Harris. A deal with Portland would be sweet.
 
vslice02 said:
The concept of having your top 5-7 guys be young players under 25 may look good on paper but has never worked.
Establish your core for the future (Favors, Hayward, #3 pick, potentially '12 GS Pick) and if you have a couple guys in their early 30's after them that's fine.
Click to expand...


See OKC!

I would rather trade Harris and keep Millsap for our 6th man. If Millsap squawks about coming off the bench then we can trade him for a veteran SG/PG/SF. Watson said he wants to come back and he said he wanted to come off the bench. He can mentor Knight.
 
Here's what they're saying over at the Raptors board:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1120781&start=15
It's about what Utah give up. Even Raja Bell, would go along way on improving this team.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't do it just for Bell, but his value for us would be floor stretching and def and toughness. He can hit open threes, or has shown the ability too, and he's doesn't take plays off, and he doesn't take crap. IMO, for little money, and playing time requests, he'd add a lot of "stuff" we need. That's why I'd say he'd improve our team.
Click to expand...

My plan is we just trade Bell for the #5 straight across. If that's not enough we'll throw in Tomic and maybe CJ Miles and they'll throw in next year's pick unprotected. Deal?
 
infection said:
Here's what they're saying over at the Raptors board:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=1120781&start=15



My plan is we just trade Bell for the #5 straight across. If that's not enough we'll throw in Tomic and maybe CJ Miles and they'll throw in next year's pick unprotected. Deal?
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but it brings up a question that I've had for a while. Are we able to trade away next year's first as an unprotected pick? As of right now the TWolves own our pick, but it's lottery protected, right? So technically we're not able to trade it away until after the lottery, right?

For instance we can't trade it away saying if we're in the lottery than team x gets our pick, but if we're not in the lottery than Minnesota gets it, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top