What's new
By:

Move On From Hayward?

Why do people like Barnes so much?

With all his talent, and all his opportunity, he still hasn't done anything! Calling him a poor mans Hayward is doing Hayward a disservice.
 
#bern said:
Why do people like Barnes so much?

With all his talent, and all his opportunity, he still hasn't done anything! Calling him a poor mans Hayward is doing Hayward a disservice.
Click to expand...

there's the argument of constrained role (like when Harden exploded after leaving OKC, even though he was putting up some insane advanced stats in that last season-- ppl just didn't know what would happen after he left OKC).

I do think that Barnes can do more on offence than what we've seen, but one thing that worries me is his three-point shooting.

I mean c'mon. If you have Steph and Klay on your team, everyone should be gunning 40% on multiple, multiple attempts. The lack of volume form Barnes is concerning, and I'd totally imagine him dropping to like 35% if he went to another team.
 
#bern said:
Why do people like Barnes so much?

With all his talent, and all his opportunity, he still hasn't done anything! Calling him a poor mans Hayward is doing Hayward a disservice.
Click to expand...

It's about basketball pedigree and nothing measurable on the court.

He's very average.
 
dalamon said:
there's the argument of constrained role (like when Harden exploded after leaving OKC, even though he was putting up some insane advanced stats in that last season-- ppl just didn't know what would happen after he left OKC).

I do think that Barnes can do more on offence than what we've seen, but one thing that worries me is his three-point shooting.

I mean c'mon. If you have Steph and Klay on your team, everyone should be gunning 40% on multiple, multiple attempts. The lack of volume form Barnes is concerning, and I'd totally imagine him dropping to like 35% if he went to another team.
Click to expand...

Never, not in college, not in the NBA, has he shown that he can create his own offense. Never has he shown the ability to create for others. He's a pretty good defender, he can shoot fairly well, and he's an ok rebounder. That's it. He tests very athletically, but doesn't play like it. He would be awful here.
 
#bern said:
Never, not in college, not in the NBA, has he shown that he can create his own offense. Never has he shown the ability to create for others. He's a pretty good defender, he can shoot fairly well, and he's an ok rebounder. That's it. He tests very athletically, but doesn't play like it. He would be awful here.
Click to expand...

yeah lemme assert the fact that I definitely don't want him in Utah on a max contract. Blegh.

Save it for a PG if Exum busts
 
IMO, Barnes has always been a slasher, not a shooter. No thanks. I'd rather chase DeRozen, and I think he's a bad fit for the Jazz. He at least comes across as an Alpha guy that would pair well with Hayward, allow Hood to move to a 6th man role and allows the team to shop Burks for help at the trade deadline.

I don't think Barnes gives you that. If the Jazz are giving a guy max money, I'd prefer that they target a guy who will at least approach All Star status. I think you could argue for Batum before Barnes (and he scares the hell out of me at that price tag also).

I'd much rather see the Jazz go BPA at #12 and then trade Burke, cash and picks to aggressively get back into the late 1st round to add a guy that slips into their range. Then go after Pau Gasol to add bench scoring.

Between two first round picks in both 2017/2018, a full max salary slot and a better class of free agents. . . unless they can get Durant or DeRozen, I'd rather see them focus on the 2016 trade deadline or 2017 offseason to make a big move. I'd rather not see them waste all their bullets on a poor free agency class like the one that will hit the market this offseason.
 
Burke was, has been and will always be terrible on defense.

The Jazz could have done almost anything else and been better off than starting Trey Burke.

Move Alec Burks into the starting job and gone with a 3 wing lineup from the very beginning? Yep. Better than starting Trey Burke.

Sign Jeremy Lin to fill Burke's bench role behind Exum (when nobody wanted Linsanity) and then be forced to start him instead of Neto? Yep. Better than starting Trey Burke.

Trade for Shelvin Mack the week after Exum hurt his knee instead of waiting until the trade deadline? Yep. Better than starting Trey Burke.

Trade Trey, plus cash and 2nd round picks last year (while he had some value) to move up from pick #42 into the late 1st round to draft R. J. Hunter, move him to PG and send him to Idaho for the whole season? Yep. Still better than starting Trey Burke.
 
Barnes is shooting like 80% in the first quarter in this series. There is no telling what the kid could do if his minutes weren't so limited. And comparing him to Hayward isn't really all that fair. If Barnes was given the green light to completely run a team like Hayward, where would his stats be? If Hayward was fighting for time with Thompson, Iggy, Livingston, Curry, Barbosa and others, where would his stats be?

If Barnes was in the East as a starter, he'd be a borderline All Star. Are you watching the Finals? He's 15-28 with 15 rebounds without getting the chance to play consistent minutes. This season, he averaged 12ppg, 5pg and 2apg in 31mpg. Hayward averaged 20ppg, 5rpg and 3.7apg in 36 mpg. I love Jazz players, but we get a little bit too enamored with them.
 
And the flip side is that people get too enamored with guys who aren't in Utah with a grass is always greener mentality. Hayward, Favors, Gobert and Lyles make up one of the best young front-courts in the league. . . but this board is littered with trade ideas to get rid of one or more of them.

You like Barnes, that's great. I don't see him as a future All star. Closer to Tobias Harris than Gordon Hayward. I'd rather not have the Jazz blow their max contract space on a third tier guy. The big issue is that the Jazz didn't take advantage of a close finish to make the playoffs and prove to the league and potential free agents that they're ready to take the next step. Thus, they won't be in the conversation for guys like Durant and DeRozen when that's what their focus should be.

They have the core pieces, but need the star. Winning changes that mentality and they collectively dropped the ball.
 
Horrible thread, Toi much nba live online playing for you.
The roster would not make the playoffs next year. Going forward it still isn't a greta team on paper. No star power. Be sitting where you are right now. On bubble every year of playoffs and lottery... Plus Hayward is not worth a number 3 pick and you basically nailed as to why. Doenst do any one thing great and isn't clutch. Then to think Hayward would help Durant land to boston is foolish. He could stay with Russ or go play with Hayward. Joke of a thread


LoPo said:
Hey guys - relatively new but I thought I would still test the waters.

Gordon Hayward - I really like the guy. He does everything at a good rate. I don't believe he does anything at an elite rate and that includes all the intangibles that are hard to quantify (hustle, athleticism, leadership, "clutch ability", undeniable determination to win and insert any other intangible that don't really have a stat). From a GM perspective, don't we have to view him as entering the last year of his contract? He's signed for this year but he's got a player option for 2017-18 at what figures to be at least $5 million below where a new max would begin due to an anticipated inflated 2017 salary cap. Due to this, I'm going to act under the premise that next year is the last year of his current contract barring some horrific injury (I never even want to imagine these things so I will not go down that path at this time). So Hayward has one guaranteed year left. And if we're being honest, there is no way in hell I think we give him a 2017 max deal. He's just not worth it. He's not worth 25% of a team's salary.

We all know that Boston would love to have the guy. He fits their needs pretty well and Stevens would be for it if we made Hayward available. They want a guaranteed good player rather than waiting on #3 which could either bust or take time to develop. Hayward at Boston just makes sense, and he could actually help entice Durant to make the leap there in either 2016 or 2017.

So take this hypothetical trip with me with the moves we should potentially take:

#1 - we trade Hayward to Boston for #3. There might be little throw ins here and there from either team, but that's the meat of the trade.
#2 - we stay at #3 and we draft one of the 3 best players in the draft as things sit right now - Simmons, Ingram or Murray
#3 - we sign Harrison Barnes to a max deal

So let's walk through it. After we trade Hayward and before we draft, we have the following "core" roster:
PG Exum, Mack
SG Burks
SF Hood
PF Favors, Lyles
C Gobert
My estimation is that roster above is a playoff roster. Mack has an offseason to get better acquainted. Exum and Burks are both playing which provide us with more production combined than Hayward did by himself. Gobert develops a little more as does Hood. The above roster makes the playoffs. Some might say keeping Hayward makes us stronger which he definitely does, but he doesn't get us past the 2nd round if we get there at all.

Taking Murray as the 3rd pick gives us a dynamic scorer. Star? I don't know, but I think he gives us a much needed personality and edge especially at the end of games. He could play with Exum, run our offense at PG, etc. Simmons is a budding superstar who we'd have to get incredibly lucky or trade more assets to get. If we had #3, scenarios could exist where shoot the moon for Simmons if we so wanted. Ingram seems like a pretty safe bet to be a great SF for years to come. If he fell to #3, we say thank you very much. Either way, the upside for any of them is higher than what Hayward provides us. Regardless, we could get 4 years of one of these 3 and maybe just one more year of Hayward. Since we aren't contenders, this is just better business than maybe watching Hayward just walk in 2017.

And now to Harrison Barnes - wouldn't it just make sense to pursue him? After all, GS put their tails between their legs and lost on purpose to get him in the first place. Max for Barnes is a little steep, but I think he's worth it. The kid has it all and he has played every position for that GS team. And consider this, Barnes at a max this year would be much cheaper than Hayward at a max in 2017 due to the 2017 cap explosion. In a lot of ways, they offer the same skill set, but Barnes just seems like a star being held back simply by lack of playing time. He's been well coached and he's got a comprehensive skill set. Barnes is a restricted free agent so GS could match. If they don't, we just switched Hayward for Barnes and added the 3rd pick. If GS does match, we stick a knife in the side of their chances of adding to that amazing roster. And potentially, we hurt their chances of actually keeping that amazing team intact. So even if we "lose out" on not signing Barnes to a max, we hurt our biggest threat to a future Jazz title.

Some of this might be a little far fetched, but just dream a little bit with me about this potential lineup:
PG Exum, Murray, Mack
SG Murray/Hood, Burks
SF Barnes, Hood
PF Favors, Lyles, Barnes
C Gobert, Favors, Lyles
Tons and tons of match-up possibilities. Our roster flexibility would only be rivaled by the Warriors (who actually lose their small ball PF to us).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top