John Hollinger Thinks Conley May Opt Out

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
Thanks for responding.

But I'm sorry. I really don't consider this realistic. If it happens, great! I don't mind being proven wrong.

As much as I'm not convinced that Horford over Conley is a clear upgrade, Thybulle would probably tip the scales. And another 1st would certainly help, too. (As long as someone persuades me that taking on Horford's contract isn't going to hurt badly down the line.) But I think you're seeing through Jazz-colored glasses on this one.
You must’ve fainted when you saw what Utah gave up for Conley, then.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
@Handlogten's Heros is definitely the guy to ask for the gritty details.

I don’t think Horford + Thybulle + a late first is out of the question. Their cap sheet is ****ing awful. And Conley fits pretty damn well with their needs.
That’d be the minimum I’d do it for. Unless they want to move Ben or Joel they will need to put assets with Al to get off his money... they are like 12-22M in the tax already and have serious fit issues. Tough to sell owners on a 25-50M tax bill when you are a 5/6 seed in the East.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
You must’ve fainted when you saw what Utah gave up for Conley, then.
Also do we remember what Sixers paid to rent Jimmy and to overpay Tobias? People acting like a team would never pay a pick or young player to get a win now piece that fits... it also gets them off a bad contract.

I’d honestly want a little more than that. I’m not sure they are ready to go for that yet. It would be a potentially bad deal for us one year from now... but would put us in the tax for one year and then we’d be okay. We’d be able to avoid it if we make some other maneuvers but we don’t operate that way so we’d likely view ourselves as stuck. I just laugh at what the heat can do... they got off of so much ****** money this season and some how came out with Iggy. I think all they gave up was busted *** Winslow. Say you get a first, a second, and one of their young guys... wait a year and if it’s bad can you get off of ALS money with the first? Maybe. I’d want light protections on the pick so maybe by then it’s a late lotto pick. I don’t see a lot of teams giving them both:

1-salary relief they desperately need.
2- a player that fits what they need.

There is the rumored Sacramento deal with Buddy but theyd still have a cash crunch and still need someone that can create a shot off the dribble. They’d likely have to put an asset in that deal too.

If we retain JC and use the MLE on a good big we will end up in a similar cash crunch as we would if we took Al... you just likely get a worse player but don’t have any other assets to show for it. You’d be without Mikes services but we were able to make due pretty damn well.

The alternative is roll it forward... get a cheap big and hope it works... and end of the year you are in great shape with the cap but really can’t add anything meaningful. We likely need to pay the tax if we want to be a big boy contender. Problem is the goal may be to be a cute story contender... that remains profitable.
 

FAILED STATE

Well-Known Member
The alternative is roll it forward... get a cheap big and hope it works... and end of the year you are in great shape with the cap but really can’t add anything meaningful. We likely need to pay the tax if we want to be a big boy contender. Problem is the goal may be to be a cute story contender... that remains profitable.
I’m not sure how many JFCers realize how stuck we are. Even if you think Mike is gonna be better next year—there’s no way you think he’s gonna be THAT piece.

If I were running things, I’d pivot away so fast.... get back to defense and let it ride on that strength.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
I’m not sure how many JFCers realize how stuck we are. Even if you think Mike is gonna be better next year—there’s no way you think he’s gonna be THAT piece.

If I were running things, I’d pivot away so fast.... get back to defense and let it ride on that strength.
And get something that adds value beyond this year. DL will die in this hill though.
 

latin jazz

Well-Known Member
It’s about constructing a team to compete for a title over the next 6-10 years. Not next year. When we have no shot anyway.
Not really. You can't foresee what's gonna happen in 4 years, let alone 10. Title windows last much less in today's NBA. Long gone are the days of slowly bulding your team around a superstar like Duncan, Dirk, Wade, Kobe, etc. If you are a small market team, it's more likely a superstar will stay until the end of his second contract (or force his way out before it).

If you have a small window, you must take a crack at it (see Toronto). Even the freaking Lakers. They 've done everything wrong the last few years but they get AD and suddenly the go from non-playoff team to winning the title. That's how quickly the landscape changes.

On the other hand, see Boston & Philly. Both hoarding assets for the next big move: they fail to pull the trigger (Kawhi) or made horrendous moves and suddenly their chances are not as obvious.

My take is that our title window with this group is the next 2 years (maybe 3). We have an All-NBA Center in his prime, a young superstar, a great third option (Bogie), good role players around them (Joe, Royce, Mike). Great scorer from the bench (JC if he stays). We are on par with Denver, Clippers and perhaps a bit ahead of Dallas and OKC. With a healthy Bogey (or even without him but at least one decent defender), we could have reached the Conf Finals: then you are one AD twisted ankle away from reaching the Finals.

Our top 6-7 players are very good. The FO just screwed up the bench. If we hit home runs with the MLE and the draft, we are right back a it. The margin of error is thinner due to our lack of assets, but I say, go for it now and if it doesn't work, hit a rebuild while Rudy is still in his prime. Don't plan for the next 10 years because Rudy, DM, the coaching staff or even the FO might not be here that long (remember, 10 years ago we had DWill, Haywood, Kirilenko , Okur, Raja Bell, etc on the roster and Jerry was still our coach)
 
Last edited:

idiot

Well-Known Member
Here are some results from last year's season that are sure to change nobody's mind in the Conley discussion.

With the games/percentages up to the hiatus (since the Bubble had too much funny business going on), I charted the outcomes of Jazz games (winning/losing margin) against the opponents' season winning percentage. I did that with both Conley playing and without him playing.

Picture1.pngView attachment 9831

The result? Virtually no difference. You'll see that the trend line for both crosses 0 at almost precisely the same location on both graphs. (The trend lines basically show how much the Jazz should have been expected to win or lose by versus an opponent with any particular winning %.)

In other words, once you factor in opponent strength, the Jazz accomplished almost precisely the same thing with or without Conley. I ran a few more less interesting calculations along these lines, as well, but they all pointed to the same thing; in fact, all the with-vs-without-Conley calculations were almost eerily close . The Jazz's odds of winning last year were essentially the same with or without Conley.
 
Last edited:

latin jazz

Well-Known Member
In other words, once you factor in opponent strength, the Jazz accomplished almost precisely the same thing with or without Conley . The Jazz's odds of winning last year were essentially the same with or without Conley.
Thanks for doing the work of including strength of schedule in your calculation.

The takeway is dissapointment, given the expectations from his previous year and the assets we lost in the process of acquiring him. On the other hand, the assertion that we were better without him looks silly and rather simplistic, and was only based on "were won 20 out of 22 without him" (or some number like that, when in reality we had an extremely easy schedule. Thanks again for putting the work and here is hoping that Conley continues the strong play of the last couple of months.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
Here are some results from last year's season that are sure to change nobody's mind in the Conley discussion.

With the games/percentages up to the hiatus (since the Bubble had too much funny business going on), I charted the outcomes of Jazz games (winning/losing margin) against the opponents' season winning percentage. I did that with both Conley playing and without him playing.

View attachment 9832View attachment 9831

The result? Virtually no difference. You'll see that the trend line for both crosses 0 at almost precisely the same location on both graphs. (The trend lines basically show how much the Jazz should have been expected to win or lose by versus an opponent with any particular winning %.)

In other words, once you factor in opponent strength, the Jazz accomplished almost precisely the same thing with or without Conley. I ran a few more less interesting calculations along these lines, as well, but they all pointed to the same thing; in fact, all the with-vs-without-Conley calculations were almost eerily close . The Jazz's odds of winning last year were essentially the same with or without Conley.
This is a really good post.
 

GVC

Well-Known Member
The alternative is roll it forward... get a cheap big and hope it works... and end of the year you are in great shape with the cap but really can’t add anything meaningful. We likely need to pay the tax if we want to be a big boy contender. Problem is the goal may be to be a cute story contender... that remains profitable.
I know we sorta had part of this discussion before, but...

If you think the cap/LT will bounce back after next season but other teams act conservatively due to the lowered cap/LT this coming season, it's the absolute perfect time to go over the LT to add talent. Mike will be gone next year, and you'll have added talent at a reduced price.

Doesn't mean the Jazz brass are willing to do it, of course.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
I know we sorta had part of this discussion before, but...

If you think the cap/LT will bounce back after next season but other teams act conservatively due to the lowered cap/LT this coming season, it's the absolute perfect time to go over the LT to add talent. Mike will be gone next year, and you'll have added talent at a reduced price.

Doesn't mean the Jazz brass are willing to do it, of course.
DL hasn't really shown to be ahead of the curve on these types of moves. I agree in general but want to see what they do with the cap. I really think the easiest solution is to leave the cap at the $115M projection and just deflate across the board through a bigger escrow. I'd want to know what the plan was next year too before I went after someone hard.

I don't think we need to go into the tax to use the MLE in that scenario. If the cap drops and there is an opportunity I agree that the MLE might net something solid and be worth paying the tax. There just aren't a lot of guys in the MLE tier that I think are good building blocks... I'd rather look at a lower price for guys that have shown some ability but might be diamonds in the rough like Shaq Harrison.

I don't think Wood goes for less than MLE in either scenario... and he's the only guy I see as a potential ceiling raiser.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
There are not many free agents I'd want to spend the full MLE. There are a few guys that will get a little more than MLE that are interesting, but even then do you want to spend 12-14M a year on Jerami Grant? In a vacuum that's fine, but if the cost is watching JC leave and extending Conley dangerously far into the future I will pass.

I'm not sure Wood will be worth that either, but if he shoots as well as he did last year and improves on a few things he could be worth a lot more than that. It would absolutely be a gamble though.
 

idiot

Well-Known Member
This is a really good post.
Appreciate this, though you may like it less after I say this:

If Donovan had missed time so that we could do such a comparison for him, we'd probably get similar results. I say that because DM's all-in-one metrics are really not any better than Conley's (in fact, maybe a little worse overall).

It's probably likely that for most players around the league (except for the very best), their teams manage to do pretty similarly in their absence as when they played (it would be an interesting study to try to figure this out, but I'm not going to be the one to do it). I think it's just how the league works. Doesn't necessarily mean that those players are useless and that they should be gotten rid of.
 

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
Appreciate this, though you may like it less after I say this:

If Donovan had missed time so that we could do such a comparison for him, we'd probably get similar results. I say that because DM's all-in-one metrics are really not any better than Conley's (in fact, maybe a little worse overall).

It's probably likely that for most players around the league (except for the very best), their teams manage to do pretty similarly in their absence as when they played (it would be an interesting study to try to figure this out, but I'm not going to be the one to do it). I think it's just how the league works. Doesn't necessarily mean that those players are useless and that they should be gotten rid of.
DM spent a lot of time with bench units this year. His scoring was more efficient than Mikes and his usage rate and volume is obviously higher. I also expect him to improve because of his age.

I know his on/off court stuff ain’t great. There were some other things that explain it away some. I think if he missed a few games we could cover but would struggle over the long term because we need his volume scoring... even if it is only above average and not crazy efficient. I think we’d definitely feel it if DM was gone for 15 games or so.
 

idiot

Well-Known Member
DM spent a lot of time with bench units this year. His scoring was more efficient than Mikes and his usage rate and volume is obviously higher. I also expect him to improve because of his age.

I know his on/off court stuff ain’t great. There were some other things that explain it away some. I think if he missed a few games we could cover but would struggle over the long term because we need his volume scoring... even if it is only above average and not crazy efficient. I think we’d definitely feel it if DM was gone for 15 games or so.
Sure, I feel the same way about DM. I just wanted to give a reminder that stats may not always show the conclusions our educated opinions may lead us to. For DL, he may (after two years of losing to the Rockets) still value the secondary creator role that Conley gives us over the long term more than some of us in the bleachers do (not to even broach the possibility of a DM injury).

So context is important for evaluating every player. (And just for context, it's worth reminding that Conley also spent a lot of time with the second unit, and--with the help of Clarkson--had it humming for stretches more than DM ever did.)
 

jom2003

Well-Known Member
Appreciate this, though you may like it less after I say this:

If Donovan had missed time so that we could do such a comparison for him, we'd probably get similar results. I say that because DM's all-in-one metrics are really not any better than Conley's (in fact, maybe a little worse overall).


Except it's not really true...

We are +6.5 with Donovan in the game and -8.3 without him.

And net 0 with Conley on the court vs. +4.8 without him.

That is a SIGNIFICANT difference.
 

jom2003

Well-Known Member
Here are some results from last year's season that are sure to change nobody's mind in the Conley discussion.

With the games/percentages up to the hiatus (since the Bubble had too much funny business going on), I charted the outcomes of Jazz games (winning/losing margin) against the opponents' season winning percentage. I did that with both Conley playing and without him playing.

View attachment 9832View attachment 9831

The result? Virtually no difference. You'll see that the trend line for both crosses 0 at almost precisely the same location on both graphs. (The trend lines basically show how much the Jazz should have been expected to win or lose by versus an opponent with any particular winning %.)

In other words, once you factor in opponent strength, the Jazz accomplished almost precisely the same thing with or without Conley. I ran a few more less interesting calculations along these lines, as well, but they all pointed to the same thing; in fact, all the with-vs-without-Conley calculations were almost eerily close . The Jazz's odds of winning last year were essentially the same with or without Conley.

Are we talking about the regular season? Cuz the official NBA on/off court metrics tells a similar story but "virtually no difference" means there's still a difference.

Statistically we are 0.7 better in terms of net rating with Conley on the bench. "Virtually" it's pretty hard to tell i guess. Good to know that having Conley is better than nothing.
 

idiot

Well-Known Member
I was basing my judgments on:

- B-Reference's OnCourt net/100 poss and On-off net rating /100 (both of which it's better to be positive): Conley had +2.0, and -0.4 respectively, and DM had +2.0 and -0.9 (though for some reason the results are different in B-Ref than NBA.com Stats, these pure on-off stats are rather untrustworthy by themselves, dependent as they on who you spend your time on the court with)

- PIPM score: MC: -0.27, DM: -2.31
- RPM score: MC: -0.80, DM: -0.30
-RAPTOR score: MC: -1.15; DM: 0.20

Taken together, these look pretty even (I guess it depends on which stat you trust, but I tend to value using them in combination rather than one single stat). Aside from the comparison between Mitchell and Conley, the point was also that DM doesn't really look like a net positive from these type of stats. But I hope we're wise enough not to just go off of one stat or another in evaluating either Mitchell or Conley (though I don't want to discount stats entirely, of course).
 

idiot

Well-Known Member

Are we talking about the regular season? Cuz the official NBA on/off court metrics tells a similar story but "virtually no difference" means there's still a difference.

Statistically we are 0.7 better in terms of net rating with Conley on the bench. "Virtually" it's pretty hard to tell i guess. Good to know that having Conley is better than nothing.
Yes, I'm not talking about playoffs.

One more reason to slightly distrust the net rating: the games Conley missed were disproportionately against weaker teams (as I hope my earlier graphs showed).
 
Top