What's new
By:

[Jones]BREAKING: Jazz willing to engage Celtics in S&T talks: But Gordon Hayward must agree

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 95
  • Start date Start date
Ellis269 said:
If Hood stays healthy, he's going to be the Jazz leading scorer this year. He averaged 12.7 points per game and 3.4 rebounds per game. In the games he played while Hayward was out, he upped his numbers to 17.8 points per game and 4.9 rebounds per game. Small sample size, but Hood will become the first option to replace Hayward's production.

Overall, Hill (+2.7 ppg, -0.8 rpg, +0.3 apg), Hood (+5.1 ppg, +1.5 rpg, no change in apg), Joe Johnson (+5.0 ppg, +0.9 rpg, +1.5 apg) and Jingles (+3.9 ppg, +0.1 rpg, +0.2 apg) all increased their production when Hayward was out. (+16.7 ppg, +1.8 rpg, +1.8 apg.)
Click to expand...

Sure... They had increased production, but the problem was at the cost of decreased efficiency for the Jazz. Ingles scored more, because he HAD to. No one else would. But he and Hood looked like chuckers in that role. Crowder (or gay or whatever SF we land) plus Mitchell, a healthy Burks, a healthy Favors, and an offense run by a pure setup man in Rubio should make everyone's efficiency go up. I think an offense running through Rubio is the biggest difference more so than increases in ppg.

Friggin Westbrook could get 53 points most nights... but he would have to shoot at least 45 shots to do it. Inefficient. Kobe got 63 points in his last game in the NBA... on 62 shots if I recall. Less than a point per shot! Why Hayward was good is that he scored 25 points on 11 - 14 shots in most games. The extra 5 ppg for Hood come on an extra 4 - 6 shots going off the eyeball test. That was a big deal on a team with such a slow pace.
 
What about bringing back CJ Miles? He is older and still a pretty good shooter. We chose Hayward over CJ now why not bring him back to fill the role Hayward left?

[video=youtube_share;NCgVmxZK5YQ]https://youtu.be/NCgVmxZK5YQ

Bring him home
 
Siro said:
I thought bird rights MEANT the ability to match a contract.
Click to expand...

no. Matching offers is a facet of Restricted Free Agency.

Bird Rights gives the team the ability to pay more/more years.

EDIT: ^this^ was sloppy. Glad NUMBERICA added the over-the-cap portion that I omitted.
 
Siro said:
I thought bird rights MEANT the ability to match a contract.
Click to expand...
Bird Rights give a team the ability to re-sign their own free agent for above the MLE even if they're above the cap (The Larry Bird Exception).

Rights to match are a property of restricted free agency (which require tendering a qualifying offer, which the Celtics rescinded).
 
Ellis269 said:
That's one of the benefits from their perspective. It allows them to keep their depth and enough assets to be flexible with other moves.
Click to expand...
My understanding with the new sign and trade rules is that you do have to still be under the cap. You need a team under the cap like how Atlanta was to make a trade work. But I also am seeing conflict reports. But sign and trades almost never happen now and that was one of the stated reasons.
 
Have any of our capologists done the math on the Celtics adding Hogwarts? I know I have read the list of players that they have to cut was 6 and that even still they are $300,000 short. So it appears that the celtics will have to lose some even more important players if they can't execute a trade. I think because of that, the Jazz are in the driver's seat here but I don't know it.

They Jazz are a willing partner and have the ability to facilitate the move. Hayward, Bartlestain, and politics are pushing a bit. Ainge probably doesn't have that many willing partners in the East who will help them out. There aren't many teams in the league that have any $$$ left to add Crowder to their rosters without cutting assets. Example, if it weren't for a sign and trade deal, would you want to (with your own cash) cut a guy like Alec Burks, pay him every penny of his contract, so that you could sign Crowder and pay him as well, to help the Celtics out... all while knowing you can't compete against the superteams? AND you have to give up an asset to Boston to do it?

I doubt there are many teams who are willing to do that even for a second round pick.
 
The exception we would get can't be combines with other exceptions or mle right? Can it be combined with an ongoing player.
 
Ron Mexico said:
My understanding with the new sign and trade rules is that you do have to still be under the cap. You need a team under the cap like how Atlanta was to make a trade work. But I also am seeing conflict reports. But sign and trades almost never happen now and that was one of the stated reasons.
Click to expand...
Teams over the LT don't get to participate in sign-and-trades. Sign and trades exist largely to facilitate moves for one or more team over the cap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top