Name a better wing rotation than Hayward Hood Burks

[fishonjazz]

He wasn't talking about any specific player. He was responding to your post about 4 wings at least as good as Burks. Keep up.

So we are talking fantasy world. I see.

Then yes I think we should just get 4 all star wings and play them all 30 minutes per game and win all the championships.

Btw this discussion is in reference to last summer when some posters wanted us to go after a free agent wing. Mainly carroll, green, and matthews. Some of us wanted to keep our wings and not add any.

So yes, talk of specific players is relevant in this discussion

 

[Deleted member 848]

If the Jazz had signed any of the big name FA wings, Hood would not have emerged and flourished like he is now. What Hood had done the last couple months is the primary reason that baking the cake was the right choice.

/thread

 

[RandyForRubio]

Having 3 wings being paid max money is moronic and simply unaffordable.

Please find where anybody has suggested having 3 wings being paid max money. Thanks.

I'm trying to address my arguments towards what people are actually saying in this conversation. Maybe you could try the same?

 

[RandyForRubio]

He wasn't talking about any specific player. He was responding to your post about 4 wings at least as good as Burks. Keep up.

This. It's not difficult.

If the Jazz had signed any of the big name FA wings, Hood would not have emerged and flourished like he is now. What Hood had done the last couple months is the primary reason that baking the cake was the right choice.

There's really no way of knowing that. I could just as easily say that the competition and veteran leadership would improve his skills just as much, if not more. Unfortunately, none of us know for sure. It's all just conjecture. Some of us just have a hard time admitting there might be more than one end result.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Again, you're operating with 20/20 hindsight. Also, I haven't mentioned any specific players, more just the general idea.

I don't feel that Burks fits into our plans as a contending team. So getting a player who can at least hit 3's and play defense would be an improvement, IMO. Then we trade Burks so we can improve a different position (let's say PG). That would equal a net impact for the team, even if maybe our wing position is a little weaker. And obviously we don't know if a trade would work out. Acting like it wouldn't because they haven't before is foolish. Each trade is different, each player is different. So a side by side comparison is fairly intellectually stupid.

Burks is about the best we can do for a 3rd wing given our salary flexibility in this teams future, unless we buy low on a player that ends up exploding (someone like Chris Johnson becoming Demarre).

I'd much rather save dollars for Rudy and eventually Favors, along with PG insurance in case Dante busts.

 

[fishonjazz]

I still don't get why people are saying we should have added wing talent when we may already have the best wings in the entire league, all young, all on good contracts.

Some people just can't ever be happy.... Or maybe they just can't admit that the jazz made the right decision not to add a big name wing last summer.

Oh and I have yet to hear of a team that has 4 really good wings. I will keep waiting

 

[seattlejazzfan]

This. It's not difficult.



There's really no way of knowing that. I could just as easily say that the competition and veteran leadership would improve his skills just as much, if not more. Unfortunately, none of us know for sure. It's all just conjecture. Some of us just have a hard time admitting there might be more than one end result.

There is no way of knowing that with 100% certainty, but Hood is averaging 35 minutes a game the last two months (37 in Feb). He wouldn't be doing what he is doing if for no other reason that his minutes would be cut significantly with another starting caliber wing in the rotation. And I'm not sure how that can be argued.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Burks is about the best we can do for a 3rd wing given our salary flexibility in this teams future, unless we buy low on a player that ends up exploding (someone like Chris Johnson becoming Demarre).

I'd much rather save dollars for Rudy and eventually Favors, along with PG insurance in case Dante busts.

And that's a fair, and logical argument. I'm not saying we did it wrong, just that there are other options, and I prefer adding talent when possible. I don't view Burks as a solid piece of our future, so if we could have signed somebody that could adequately replace him, and then trade Burks to improve another piece of our team, I would've been fine with that. I'm also ok with what we did. However, at some point we do need to upgrade our roster. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Please find where anybody has suggested having 3 wings being paid max money. Thanks.

I'm trying to address my arguments towards what people are actually saying in this conversation. Maybe you could try the same?

there was no available wing better than Burks that could be had for anything below near-max money.

 

[ncoloradojazz]

Klay, Barnes, Iggy off the top of my head is better

 

[fishonjazz]

Let's say I baked the best cake in the world (best wing tandem in the world)

Then someone said to me "you really should have added some other ingredient to the mix"

I would tell that ****er to **** off. Greedy unpleasable miserable *******. My cake is the best. I'm happy with it

 

[RandyForRubio]

There is no way of knowing that with 100% certainty, but Hood is averaging 35 minutes a game the last two months. He wouldn't be doing what he is doing if for no other reason that his minutes would be cut significantly with another starting caliber wing in the rotation. And I'm not sure how that can be argued.

I get that, but how are we to say Hood doesn't outplay that guy and get the starting job? How can I say that he wouldn't have improved just as much by playing 28 minutes a game? Most of a players improvement comes during practice and what not. Again, all I'm saying is that we don't know.