What's new
By:

Name the 5 starters and

Dr. Jones said:
So in order of importance, it seems we need;

1) Either a backup C or a stretch 4.
2) Better shooting from the wings.
3) More veteran leadership/playmaking at PG.

Looks like our best trade bait without giving up tooo much is Burks.
Click to expand...

144mins
Exum
Burks
Hood
Hayward

96 mins
Booker
Favors
Gobert

Not rotational players
trade bait/spot mins/injury insurance
Burke
Jingles
Sap
Cotton
blah blah blah

We are short 1-2 rotation guys. There is no rush to make it 3 by dumping Burks, imo.
 
NAOS said:
Would you mind putting together a depth chart with these pieces and estimating their average minutes? Dal, you too?
Click to expand...

Exum (29 mins)/Burke (18 mins)/3rd PG (6 mins)
Hood (15 mins)/Burks (28 mins)/Millsap (8 mins)
Hayward (30 mins)/Hood (14 mins)/ Ingles (8 mins)
Favors (23 mins)/Booker (20 mins)/Somebody else (8 mins)
Gobert (30 mins)/Favors (10 mins)/Somebody else (10 mins)

That's how I see it going. I think Exum gets around 29-31 mins. (PG/SG)
Burke 18-20 mins (PG)
Burks 28-30 (SG)
Hayward 30-33 (SG/SF/PF)
Hood 28-30 (SG/SF)
Favors 30-33 (PF/C)
Gobert 30-33 (C)

The rest are all scrubs and easily interchanged.
 
You can even slide Exum to the two for 3-5 mins to increase mins for Burke and decrease Hood's mins or slide Hayward down to the four, Hood to the three, etc.

I think Utah puts Exum at the two before they put Hood, Burks, or Hayward at the one.
 
The way I see it Burke's value further decreases because Burks comes back/Draft Pick/Free agency resulting in fewer mins. Give the kid the change of scenery he needs and focus on finding the guys that fit.
 
Normal Starters:

PG - Exum
SG - Hoob
SF - Hayward
PF - Favors
C - Gobert

Bench:

PG - Burke
6th Man - SG - Burks (can either replace Hood or slide Hood to the 3 with Burks at the 2...now that is some firepower)
SF - ?/Jingles
PF - ?/Booker
C - ?

The biggest holes are wing and big man depth really. I am a fan of going after Demarre. I don't think we need a homerun player. I think we need serviceable guys that understand and will run with our defensive philosophy. Follow the Gobert and you cannot go wrong.
 
I love NAOS' escalation;

NAOS: GUIs, I think we will see Burks get a lot of burn at PG.

Board: Um,no. Burks isn't a PG.

NAOS: no, you dummies, I'm not saying he's a PG, I'm just saying you will see Burks, Hood, and Hayward on the floor together a ton.

Board: ohhhh, no. At least not at the 1, 2, 3.

NAOS: ok, whatever GUIs. You've just proven once again how stupid you are.
 
He made a much more compelling argument in the version that I saw. Here's how it read to me:
Dr. Jones said:
I love NAOS' escalation;

NAOS: This poster is on your ignore list.

Board: Um,no. Burks isn't a PG.

NAOS: This poster is on your ignore list.

Board: ohhhh, no. At least not at the 1, 2, 3.

NAOS: This poster is on your ignore list.
Click to expand...
 
You'll see a lot of Burks, Hood, and Hayward on the floor together at the "1", "2", and "3".
 
green said:
Yeah, I agree with you guys. Burke should only be getting 15-20 mins a night.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if Burke isn't worth a second rounder and some cash. I'd take that option (and there may be better ones out there) before I consign that asset to a 20-minute per night role that could be filled as adequately or more adequately by Cotton.
 
NAOS said:
I'd be surprised if Burke isn't worth a second rounder and some cash. I'd take that option (and there may be better ones out there) before I consign that asset to a 20-minute per night role that could be filled as adequately or more adequately by Cotton.
Click to expand...

Burke + Burks + 2nd rounder for a mid 1st.. this year or '17.
 
Dr. Jones said:
I disagree, but respect you having such a strong opinion that bucks popular opinion. Mean that.
Click to expand...

I've been asking for a sensible contradiction to my argument. I'm not escalating (@green I disagree with you, but thanks for putting that together), I'm just asking for an argument.

In the Burks/Hay/Hood combo, Burks can play entirely off-ball. He may or may not guard the PG, who's probably gonna a run a PnR, and we're gonna switch in that lineup anyway. Regardless, if Burks is on the PG, it'll be backup PG (since I'm not suggesting this as a starting lineup), and it isn't as if he'd be replacing a defensive juggernaut.

We could sign a veteran wing. If so, then this combo is less likely.

We could draft a wing. If so, this may be less likely, pending the development of the rookie.

Those are fairly big IFs, so I'll go with the odds of this combo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top