What's new
By:

NBA Free Agency Moves in General (related to the Jazz, but not just moves made by the Jazz)

stitches said:
In a weird way Rubio makes more sense for this team after we lost Hayward. We can use his playmaking now that we lost our best playmaker and offensive creator.
Click to expand...

I was originally on that train of though that Rubio acquisition would be bad if we lost Hayward, but we gave up so little to get it, it was basically a no-brainer.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
You can't be sued for backing out of a verbal agreement. DeAndre Jordan did it two years ago. The moratorium is suppose to exist for this reason (I believe, maybe there is a different reason I'm not aware of).
Click to expand...

Verbal agreements are binding. Mavs may have had some recourse, but tough to make a player play for you. Moratorium is to set up the financials and cap (finish the audit etc.). Why would the moratorium be allowed to let players and teams walk away from verbal agreements?

We could ask him if he still wants to be here and mutually walk away, but just saying nevermind would likely lead to legal actions if he got offered a lower deal... no faksies or take backs.
 
stitches said:
In a weird way Rubio makes more sense for this team after we lost Hayward. We can use his playmaking now that we lost our best playmaker and offensive creator.
Click to expand...

I think Rubio won't worry as much if he is controlling the ball. I still like the get and think there is some upside. We have fixed some flaws before and I think we can help him. The things he does well are hard to teach.

I think Hood may be helped a little as well. Not as much thinking... just let it fly damnit.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Verbal agreements are binding. Mavs may have had some recourse, but tough to make a player play for you. Moratorium is to set up the financials and cap (finish the audit etc.). Why would the moratorium be allowed to let players and teams walk away from verbal agreements?

We could ask him if he still wants to be here and mutually walk away, but just saying nevermind would likely lead to legal actions if he got offered a lower deal... no faksies or take backs.
Click to expand...

Link?

If a player can back out of a verbal agreement to sign a deal w/o legal recourse, so can the teams.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think Rubio won't worry as much if he is controlling the ball. I still like the get and think there is some upside. We have fixed some flaws before and I think we can help him. The things he does well are hard to teach.

I think Hood may be helped a little as well. Not as much thinking... just let it fly damnit.
Click to expand...

I just hope if Hood is good, he is really good. I don't really want to pay Hood 108/4 next year if the only thing he is stepping up is his shot attempts.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Link?

If a player can back out of a verbal agreement to sign a deal w/o legal recourse, so can the teams.
Click to expand...

Search the internet... The mavs could have pursued some legal recourse... it would have been fruitless but whatevs.

You don't think if Ingles waits a few days and now takes a deal worth half what we offered that the player's union wouldn't bring hell to our front door. It wouldn't just be an awful look but I'm fairly sure we'd end up losing in a court.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I just hope if Hood is good, he is really good. I don't really want to pay Hood 108/4 next year if the only thing he is stepping up is his shot attempts.
Click to expand...

I think we extend him at 4/70ish...
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Link?

If a player can back out of a verbal agreement to sign a deal w/o legal recourse, so can the teams.
Click to expand...

This may be true (I suspect it is, actually), but the Jazz would never do it. How could any future player ever trust them if they did?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Search the internet... The mavs could have pursued some legal recourse... it would have been fruitless but whatevs.

You don't think if Ingles waits a few days and now takes a deal worth half what we offered that the player's union wouldn't bring hell to our front door. It wouldn't just be an awful look but I'm fairly sure we'd end up losing in a court.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would be a bad look, but I dont think there would be any legal action.

And it's nothing I'm advocating for.
 
I think the Jazz need to take a step back, re-evaluate their goals and reset their direction. The Jazz thought they were going to be a WCF team this year with a puncher's chance of advancing if one of the main Warriors players got injured. Now, their current core puts their ceiling at 48 - 50 wins with a first or second-round exit. And by that, I'm referring to next year. They're more like a 40 - 42-win team right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top