JC 4yr/52 Million




Shad

Well-Known Member
We need him in future years but this is an obvious overpay. We were bidding against nobody. This was the year to get a good deal and use our draft pick to address a need and so far we've done neither.

We paid 16 million a year for diarrhea Hood and Clarkson is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better than that dude
We paid 10 million for Dedxum who played 1/3 of his contract.
We paid 10 million for Burks who played about 1/2 of his contract.

13 million for Clarkson is a steal
 

KqWIN

Well-Known Member
It's a very rich contract, the Jazz almost never get their guys on discounts. Burks, Exum, Favors, Gobert, Ingles all signed premium value contracts. Possibly a side effect of them cheaping out on Hayward. Don't love these numbers, but losing him for nothing was the worse path.
 

Agent#00

Active Member
Glad to have him back and favors. We also got rid of unhappy Davis and Bradley. Don't care much about the money, I'm not the one paying them anyway and besides I'm sure teams can afford them.

Now that he's mind is more free, expect an explosive season for JC.
 

Thee Idiotic Minivan K

Well-Known Member
It's a very rich contract, the Jazz almost never get their guys on discounts. Burks, Exum, Favors, Gobert, Ingles all signed premium value contracts. Possibly a side effect of them cheaping out on Hayward. Don't love these numbers, but losing him for nothing was the worse path.
Please, CJ was signed for fairly cheap compared to some of the contracts given to some average players that can’t fill CJ’s shoes
 

cowhide

Well-Known Member
We need him in future years but this is an obvious overpay. We were bidding against nobody. This was the year to get a good deal and use our draft pick to address a need and so far we've done neither.
Look at the other deals that are being made. Many of those deals are also bidding against no one. This is how it works in the NBA, sure some teams regret it later but JC contract is not as bad as some considering his production. Our bench would have been even more dismal without him, he has his warts but he provides bench scoring which we lack
 

LoPo

Well-Known Member
Look at the other deals that are being made. Many of those deals are also bidding against no one. This is how it works in the NBA, sure some teams regret it later but JC contract is not as bad as some considering his production. Our bench would have been even more dismal without him, he has his warts but he provides bench scoring which we lack
All things considered, the JC contract isn't bad. Longer than I wanted, but amount is okay.

We had to keep him because we didn't have the money to adequately replace him. Some of the other deals out there are definitely worse.

Sent from my SM-G970U using JazzFanz mobile app
 

gomretat

Well-Known Member
If we overpaid for anyone it was Favs, not JC. Some of the "experts" I heard were guessing that Favs might get a one year 13/15M a year so maybe that is why we did it. I think Favs as a back up makes us better but I wish it was 2 years and not 3.
 

kabenac

Well-Known Member
I've been a JC homer for years. The dude plays well in our system. Worth every penny. So glad we have him for a few years as he's gasoline when our offense sputters and noone wants to take a damn shot besides Mitchell.
 

candrew

Well-Known Member
also ....

Gallinari - $61.5/3 yrs (never made an allstar?)
Bertans - 80/5
Harris - 75/4
FOX - 163/5 Max?

This is exactly what I said in the FA thread. Yesterday at 6pm Clarkson's deal looked a tad high - today it's a steal.

I was expecting a bear market for "mid-level" players - as I'm sure Clarkson's agent was too.
 

Top