What's new
By:
Filters

Jazz make a trade at the deadline?

Do the Jazz make a trade?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • No

    Votes: 35 89.7%
  • Total voters
    39
Wish we could somehow get devin booker..... or go back in time and draft the dude. Guy can really light it up. Already basically has 2 40 point games (1 point away) to his credit and is only like 20 years old iirc.
 
ruca said:
Potentially messing up chemistry for a top ten player(on an excellent contract) is a risk that a team that wants a championship makes.

Butler would step in and immediately be the best player on the team, in a league where it has been shown time and time again that not just superstars, but multiple superstars, are REQUIRED to win it all.
Click to expand...

Even if you did, I doubt they'd go for it. I mean, it's Butler. It's like getting Kawhi with your draft picks and a few roster pieces that are not proven to be All-Stars yet.
 
fishonjazz said:
Wish we could somehow get devin booker..... or go back in time and draft the dude. Guy can really light it up. Already basically has 2 40 point games (1 point away) to his credit and is only like 20 years old iirc.
Click to expand...

Was thinking about that last night... what if Orlando took Exum and we took Gordon... the following year do we take Booker? I know butterfly effect but think about the squad we have with air Gordon and Booker.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Was thinking about that last night... what if Orlando took Exum and we took Gordon... the following year do we take Booker? I know butterfly effect but think about the squad we have with air Gordon and Booker.
Click to expand...
****ing orlando.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Favors and Hood (imagine they're healthier) for McCollum. Who would do it?
Click to expand...

I would do that one.


Edit: Not sure what mccollums contract is like. That might change my mind.
 
I don't know dudes. This team is different from last years. I haven't seen a Jazz team like this in awhile, and it can get better. I think we're at the small tweek stage and we keep baking this ****ing cake, mang.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Okay... ignore history and believe that day will come. How the hell is it nonsense have you paid attention the last few years. We have been at or near the floor for almost three straight years and sold picks for money every goddam year... but yeah the millers are free spenders and calling them cheap is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing history wasn't your best subject in school. The Millers have paid the LT twice when they had a team poised to make some noise in the playoffs.

As for them selling off picks, there are multiple reasons why they do that sometimes. The Jazz spend a lot of time researching players, and sometimes they just don't expect any players of interest to be available where they will be drafting. They also don't ever want to be carrying a whole bunch of rookies in any given year. 3 rookies in one year is usually the limit, and sometimes roster spot limitations prevent them form even carrying that many. They have also proven to be willing to buy a pick when there was a player available they wanted. That's how we got Rudy Gobert.

Anyway, there are lots of examples of the Millers spending to make the team better, when they wouldn't have if there was any truth to them running the team cheaply. One of those examples was choosing to match Hayward, when about 60%-70% of the fan base wanted them to pass. Matching that contract was a big gamble, as Hayward didn't have a great season leading up to it. Fans cry and complain now that the FO didn't just max him and get the extra year, and even though he has proven to be worth it, that contract was a big gamble that could have backfired.

The best example was their decision to build from the ground up instead of continuing to build a mediocre team to chase the 8th seed. That's a really hard choice for a lot of teams to make, as they lose quite a bit of money by missing the playoffs for multiple years.

The jazz have no doubt, made some mistakes over the years, but the salary cap makes it extremely important to spend money intelligently. Teams like the nets and Knicks have proven that not only does throwing money around NOT guarantee anything, it can cause you big problems that take years to pull out of.

Utah has been one of the better run organizations over the years, and just because the Millers don't throw money around like Brooklyn, doesn't make them cheap. It makes them smart. Calling them cheap is absolute nonsense.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Da **** you talking about... we are literally at the salary floor right now... FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DONT UNDERSTAND THE CAP WE ARE PAYING MINIMUM WAGE RIGHT NOW OKAY... we have paid minimum wage the last few years... if we don't spend anything to make the team better this year that asset expires and just sits in the owners pocket.

There are many things we could do... that don't really affect us in future years.

1-extend hill... takes tow to tango but it may help us afford him long term

2- take on an expiring contract from a team for a draft asset or young prospect on a cheap deal.

3- take on a useful player with some salary.

If we do nothing... then talk about waiting to spend later... it will be history repeating... and we will sell more draft picks... that don't actually turn into really good players... and the poor small market millers will laugh at us all the way to the bank.

Look it's the smart business decision to pilfer that money away but let's not act like they are looking to blow that cash later when we really go for it. It's going in the coffers and the basketball fans will not be the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you're not someone who should be talking down to people about understanding the cap. Some of your criticism of DL and the Millers suggest your overall understanding is lacking. DL obviously has made mistakes, just like every GM, but a lot of the stuff you talk about as if it's a no-brainer is anything but. There are lots of angles and pros-cons involved in most decisions, and there are more reasons for maintaining room under the cap than just saving money.
 
Last edited:
Cappy_Smurf said:
No offense, but you're not someone who should be talking down to people about understanding the cap. Some of your criticism of DL and the Millers suggest your overall understanding is lacking. DL obviously has made mistakes, just like every GM, but a lot of the stuff you talk about as if it's a no-brainer is anything but. There are lots of angles and pros-cons involved in most decisions, and there are more reasons for maintaining room under the cap than just saving money.
Click to expand...

Please name the cap mistakes I make or comments that indicate I don't know what I'm talking about.. I'll wait...
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
I'm guessing history wasn't your best subject in school. The Millers have paid the LT twice when they had a team poised to make some noise in the playoffs.

As for them selling off picks, there are multiple reasons why they do that sometimes. The Jazz spend a lot of time researching players, and sometimes they just don't expect any players of interest to be available where they will be drafting. They also don't ever want to be carrying a whole bunch of rookies in any given year. 3 rookies in one year is usually the limit, and sometimes roster spot limitations prevent them form even carrying that many. They have also proven to be willing to buy a pick when there was a player available they wanted. That's how we got Rudy Gobert.

Anyway, there are lots of examples of the Millers spending to make the team better, when they wouldn't have if there was any truth to them running the team cheaply. One of those examples was choosing to match Hayward, when about 60%-70% of the fan base wanted them to pass. Matching that contract was a big gamble, as Hayward didn't have a great season leading up to it. Fans cry and complain now that the FO didn't just max him and get the extra year, and even though he has proven to be worth it, that contract was a big gamble that could have backfired.

The best example was their decision to build from the ground up instead of continuing to build a mediocre team to chase the 8th seed. That's a really hard choice for a lot of teams to make, as they lose quite a bit of money by missing the playoffs for multiple years.

The jazz have no doubt, made some mistakes over the years, but the salary cap makes it extremely important to spend money intelligently. Teams like the nets and Knicks have proven that not only does throwing money around NOT guarantee anything, it can cause you big problems that take years to pull out of.

Utah has been one of the better run organizations over the years, and just because the Millers don't throw money around like Brooklyn, doesn't make them cheap. It makes them smart. Calling them cheap is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Use another term if you'd like... we paid minimal amounts of luxury tax for two years. Since then we've basically been at the salary floor.

Matching the Hayward contract is not an example of them spending big money... we are at the floor with that contract. Sooo they'd have had to spend that money anyway. I don't know where the fan base was but I remember defending the matching of the contract to numerous jazzfanz folks.

The jazz are frugal, conservative, whatever term you want... it has provided flexibility but we've punted on utilizing that asset in the past.

People can say they are keeping the powder dry... I will believe it when I see it. If we are yet again unable to use our excess cap space for something that makes us better then we suck at planning or we are cheap... take your pick.
 
Haven't read the thread.

But I agree with siding toward losing Hayward.

His hair has been being groomed for a bigger stage.
 
Only trade I would make is Rudy Gay.

If we end up facing the Warriors in the playoffs, I think Rudy Gay is a guy who could potentially make the series different. People forget, but he is 6'8 w/ a giant wingspan. When GSW go small w/ KD at the 4, Gay would be an excellent small ball 4.

Not saying I would give up a ton of assets to get him, but I would give up draft picks. I think Sacramento pretty much knows he wants out of there, so they should look to deal him for w/e they can get. IDK who is going to really splurge to get him, but he would be a perfect fit here. Rudy Gay for Joe Johnson works straight up and just throw in some combination of 1st round picks.

Then you basically cancel out all backup PG play, giving all those minutes to Burks (spot minutes for Exum here and there). Ingles becomes your backup 2, Gay your 3/4. Minutes distribution come playoff time would be like:

PG: Hill (35)/Burks (13)
SG: Hood (30)/Ingles (10)/Burks(8)
SF: Hayward (38)/Gay(5)/Ingles (5)
PF: Favors (18)/Gay(20)/Lyles(10)
C: Gobert (35)/Favors (13)

Minutes Favors plays alongside Gobert or Gay at the 4 fluctuate depending on matchup.

Tell me that isnt a boss 9 man playoff rotation.
 
So basically, Gay takes minutes from Diaw, Lyles and Ingles. He's a streaky shooter, but he brings defense and athleticism even if his shot isn't falling. If Sacto is out of the playoff picture, they might sell low.
 
Catchall said:
So basically, Gay takes minutes from Diaw, Lyles and Ingles. He's a streaky shooter, but he brings defense and athleticism even if his shot isn't falling. If Sacto is out of the playoff picture, they might sell low.
Click to expand...

Yeah, basically it gives us someone who can matchup against teams like Houston and Golden State who play small at the 4 a lot.

I like Lyles, but I dont have a ton of confidence in him this year to be consistent enough on both ends against teams who go small.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
Threw something together. Would love to hear thoughts and opinions.

https://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=hfnrydn

I know it's risky but if it pays off I think we become a better team.
Click to expand...
I think we're giving up way to much for a player on the wrong side of 30. Also his jumpshot can be inconsistent at times and he's been known to coast through games. I don't know if we want that kind of mentality on the team moving forward. Maybe they could include a future first and we trade out exum for mack?

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Boris brought this up in another thread

Jazz trade

1st round pick
Mack
JJ
Diaw
Lyles

To Dallas for

Dwill
Nowitski

Hill, dwill, Neto
Hood, Burks, exum
Hayward, Ingles
Favors, nowitski
Gobert, withey

Withey would never play as nowitski gets all the bench minutes from favors and gobert.

Frees up playing time for Ingles. Williams has 1 year left. Nowitski might retire or even give it another year on such a stacked team.

1 last hoorah for nowitski and an even deeper PG spot with williams

Sent from my Z981 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
I'm guessing history wasn't your best subject in school. The Millers have paid the LT twice when they had a team poised to make some noise in the playoffs.

As for them selling off picks, there are multiple reasons why they do that sometimes. The Jazz spend a lot of time researching players, and sometimes they just don't expect any players of interest to be available where they will be drafting. They also don't ever want to be carrying a whole bunch of rookies in any given year. 3 rookies in one year is usually the limit, and sometimes roster spot limitations prevent them form even carrying that many. They have also proven to be willing to buy a pick when there was a player available they wanted. That's how we got Rudy Gobert.

Anyway, there are lots of examples of the Millers spending to make the team better, when they wouldn't have if there was any truth to them running the team cheaply. One of those examples was choosing to match Hayward, when about 60%-70% of the fan base wanted them to pass. Matching that contract was a big gamble, as Hayward didn't have a great season leading up to it. Fans cry and complain now that the FO didn't just max him and get the extra year, and even though he has proven to be worth it, that contract was a big gamble that could have backfired.

The best example was their decision to build from the ground up instead of continuing to build a mediocre team to chase the 8th seed. That's a really hard choice for a lot of teams to make, as they lose quite a bit of money by missing the playoffs for multiple years.

The jazz have no doubt, made some mistakes over the years, but the salary cap makes it extremely important to spend money intelligently. Teams like the nets and Knicks have proven that not only does throwing money around NOT guarantee anything, it can cause you big problems that take years to pull out of.

Utah has been one of the better run organizations over the years, and just because the Millers don't throw money around like Brooklyn, doesn't make them cheap. It makes them smart. Calling them cheap is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
Didn't they also buy the stars d league team? Would that be another example of spending money that they didn't need to spend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top