Real GM: the case for Dante Exum

[latin jazz]

That said, my greatest fear is that Gobert just isn't playing in the right decade. That over the next decade, we'll see small ball get even smaller to the point that stretch 5's will the norm rather than an anomaly. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

As framer said, Rudy's game translates very well to any decade. You can always start a dominant big who is athletic, a rebounding monster and block machine, pretty mobile and adequate on offense. He isn't Roy Hibbert (although he could be decent in the right system).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This sounds great in theory and I feel like you're right but my mind tells me you're not. It tells me that playoff basketball is a whole 'nother animal and that if and when that time comes, that we have to win four games in a seven game series, we're going to find out if our guys are the types of guys who can hit big shots. Who can hit big free throws. Who can get a stop when we need one (or two, or three...) despite maybe not being matched up that well (see Golden State).

We took a clear step last year. I expect another one this year (I'm hoping for 44+ wins). But OKC is the poster child for having unGodly potential and they've only been to one Finals.

But we shall see. Exum is the key. If in three years time, he can be as good at his position as Hayward is now at the 3, I think we have a legitimate shot.

That said, my greatest fear is that Gobert just isn't playing in the right decade. That over the next decade, we'll see small ball get even smaller to the point that stretch 5's will the norm rather than an anomaly. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Small ball is a fad that will last until a big team comes along and cleans everybody's clock.

 

[Goodluckchuck]

I agree. No way Golden State win if Love and Kyrie are healthy. Small ball has a huge flaw in it. If you don't have pure shooting, it won't work. 90% of the shooters today are streak shooters. It just so happens that the Warriors have two of the leagues best pure shooters.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Speed and length can shut down smallball and good rebounding teams can pound the hell out of smallballl on the boards as Cleveland showed ........I'm of belief that if Kyrie Irving and Love didnt get hurt Golden State wouldn't have won.
A healthy OKC is going to be a dominant scoring team and rebounding team....how does smallball beat a team that can score with them but dominate them on the boards
If Exum.Burks ,Hood,and Hayward can hold on the ball without turnovers ,their length will make their defense hard to score on.
By the way Utah and OKC tied for rebound differential last year

Dude just leave. You're boy got traded. Move on.

1000+ posts on OKC's RealGM board and he's still trolling here.

 

[Stifle Tower]

But we shall see. Exum is the key. If in three years time, he can be as good at his position as Hayward is now at the 3, I think we have a legitimate shot.

That said, my greatest fear is that Gobert just isn't playing in the right decade. That over the next decade, we'll see small ball get even smaller to the point that stretch 5's will the norm rather than an anomaly. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Agree on Exum being one of the keys. PG was (and is until proven otherwise) our biggest Achilles heel. SG was a weakness last year, too, but Hood and Burks were both out for most of the season. We aren't going to be relying on Jingles, Millsap and Johnson this year.

As for Gobert, he might be in the wrong decade in the 80's/90's trying to bang with the bigger, more physical guys. Gobert is tall, but he's also mobile. Rudy can come out on switches and bother guards. That's just amazing! I think his length and quickness enable him to compete even if teams go small at the 5.

I think one other concern is keeping the team together. As I've mentioned before, Favors, Hayward and almost certainly Gobert will all be eligible for contracts of $30M/per. Hopefully they're all willing to leave a lot of money on the table so the core can remain intact. a "Big 3" of Rudy, Derrick and Gordon with cheap vets and rookie contracts won't compete for a championship. Jazz need five all-star or fringe all-star starters plus a solid 3-4 guys off the bench. It looks like we're almost there...just need to develop and retain.

 

[framer]

Agree on Exum being one of the keys. PG was (and is until proven otherwise) our biggest Achilles heel. SG was a weakness last year, too, but Hood and Burks were both out for most of the season. We aren't going to be relying on Jingles, Millsap and Johnson this year.

As for Gobert, he might be in the wrong decade in the 80's/90's trying to bang with the bigger, more physical guys. Gobert is tall, but he's also mobile. Rudy can come out on switches and bother guards. That's just amazing! I think his length and quickness enable him to compete even if teams go small at the 5.

I think one other concern is keeping the team together. As I've mentioned before, Favors, Hayward and almost certainly Gobert will all be eligible for contracts of $30M/per. Hopefully they're all willing to leave a lot of money on the table so the core can remain intact. a "Big 3" of Rudy, Derrick and Gordon with cheap vets and rookie contracts won't compete for a championship. Jazz need five all-star or fringe all-star starters plus a solid 3-4 guys off the bench. It looks like we're almost there...just need to develop and retain.

Which is why it is vital not to have Tobias Harris or Kanter on 17 million dollar a year contracts as bench players. A lot of teams don't realize that although $17 million is the new $9 million, stars are going to be making 30 million which will eat up the new cap pretty darn fast. If you could get a fringe WESTERN all star (many Eastern all stars should have an asterisk) on a max this year, you should have done it, getting a mediocre dude for that price will hurt you.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Which is why it is vital not to have Tobias Harris or Kanter on 17 million dollar a year contracts as bench players. A lot of teams don't realize that although $17 million is the new $9 million, stars are going to be making 30 million which will eat up the new cap pretty darn fast. If you could get a fringe WESTERN all star (many Eastern all stars should have an asterisk) on a max this year, you should have done it, getting a mediocre dude for that price will hurt you.

Agree completely. I was never on board with going after most of the players that were kicked around on this board. The other thing you do if you agree to pay a "good" player a lot more than what he should have received is inflate what everyone else wants. How can you ask your own players to take a bit less if you just went out and overspent on someone else one or two years ago? Realistically, I think we lose either Hayward or Favors or even both.

1. Gordon has his entire family in Indiana. He survived the chaos of Deron/Sloan only to suffer through the Corbin era. He'll be an UFA and will likely get that $30M/per offer. He's a very good player, but not a superstar. And we have Hood developing who could slide into his spot. Does Utah want to pay him $30M? Does Gordon want to play closer to his family?

2. Derrick took less on his current contract. He likes Utah. But he's endured trade rumors for 2 years. Despite denials from the Jazz FO, he has to wonder...and feel somewhat under-appreciated. Also, how does all the Rudy love make him feel? Rudy is great, but Derrick being on the court also allows Gobert to go for all those blocks. Quin may also want more of a stretch 4. If/when Lyles develops, does that make Derrick expendable?

3. Quin/Team Chemistry/Contending. All factors that hopefully negate everything else. Jazz have always been a good place to play (despite what a couple of disgruntled players have said). Really, outside of Ameachi and Kanter, almost all ex-players have said terrific things about Utah, its fans, ownership and front office. Snyder is a player's coach, the team is close. Hopefully as they start contending, players will want to stay for less, or free agents will be attracted to the team.

 

[tleikheen]

Dude just leave. You're boy got traded. Move on.

1000+ posts on OKC's RealGM board and he's still trolling here.

Hey junior ,I've been a Jazz fan longer than you are old and your full of **** posting here I've got over a 1000 plus posts on OKC's realgm board ....I detest liars

 

[karl malone]

1. Gordon has his entire family in Indiana. He survived the chaos of Deron/Sloan only to suffer through the Corbin era. He'll be an UFA and will likely get that $30M/per offer. He's a very good player, but not a superstar. And we have Hood developing who could slide into his spot. Does Utah want to pay him $30M? Does Gordon want to play closer to his family?

This is my biggest concern regarding this team. We will no longer have the ability to match, which means the decision is out of our control, & he will likely eventually demand more money than he will be worth. Don't get me wrong, Hayward is a great player, but imo he is not worth a max contract (especially under the new salary cap). I know that it's not a popular opinion around here, but I would strongly consider trading him. I'm not sure people understand how big of a difference that opt-out clause makes because of the projected timeline of this team. If there was no opt-out clause &/or Exum was closer to being ready to contribute, I wouldn't even consider trading him, but I believe it has to at least be considered.

His value will likely never be higher than it currently is & there is basically zero possibility that we compete for a championship next year, no matter how well Hayward or anyone else plays. I love Hayward's game & believe he exemplifies what this organization stands for (which is why we will likely attempt to retain him at any & all costs), but we have to do what is best for the team long-term. I know most don't want to even consider it, as it likely pushes back our ability/likelihood to compete for another year or two, but I would trade him in the right deal. It would take a hell of a deal to do so, but if that deal is available, I would take it, as a small-franchise such as this one can't afford to risk allowing one of it's most valuable assets to potentially leave for nothing.

 

[Jazz4ever]

This is my biggest concern regarding this team. We will no longer have the ability to match, which means the decision is out of our control, & he will likely eventually demand more money than he will be worth. Don't get me wrong, Hayward is a great player, but imo he is not worth a max contract (especially under the new salary cap). I know that it's not a popular opinion around here, but I would strongly consider trading him. I'm not sure people understand how big of a difference that opt-out clause makes because of the projected timeline of this team. If there was no opt-out clause &/or Exum was closer to being ready to contribute, I wouldn't even consider trading him, but I believe it has to at least be considered.

His value will likely never be higher than it currently is & there is basically zero possibility that we compete for a championship next year, no matter how well Hayward or anyone else plays. I love Hayward's game & believe he exemplifies what this organization stands for (which is why we will likely attempt to retain him at any & all costs), but we have to do what is best for the team long-term. I know most don't want to even consider it, as it likely pushes back our ability/likelihood to compete for another year or two, but I would trade him in the right deal. It would take a hell of a deal to do so, but if that deal is available, I would take it, as a small-franchise such as this one can't afford to risk allowing one of it's most valuable assets to potentially leave for nothing.

They'll resign him or die trying for the same reason they matched his last contract....they can't afford to lose him. No player in free agency with his talent will ever walk through the door.

 

[fishonjazz]

He isn't Roy Hibbert (although he could be decent in the right system).

Thank god.

He is much better than hibbert

 

[karl malone]

They'll resign him or die trying for the same reason they matched his last contract....they can't afford to lose him. No player in free agency with his talent will ever walk through the door.

I agree with you, I just don't think it's the right decision. Why risk giving him the choice to walk out the door & then have to try to get someone of similar talent to walk through the door (which I agree is highly unlikely), when you can control the outcome (to a certain extent)? Obviously you take the risk of not receiving equal value in return if you trade him, but imo that's less of a risk than potentially losing him for nothing. By signing that offer sheet from CHA, he proved that him leaving via FA is a possibility. Losing him for nothing just as we are becoming legitimate contenders could potentially put us in a position in which we are good enough that we're unable to acquire the talent to replace him via the draft (or FA) but not good enough to actually win a championship. A small-market franchise such as this one shouldn't take that type of risk when it doesn't have to.