Real GM: the case for Dante Exum

[framer]

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.

Gobert's game translates in any decade. If you have elite rim protection, it is MUCH easier to lock down the three point line. Add to that an elite PG defender with unreal quickness and length to hound the opposing point, there isn't going to be much room left to squeeze of a bunch of open threes. if the remaining wings have any defensive talent at all. The only hurdles the Jazz have are consistent scoring from the two guard (which should be solved by Burks or Hood) and a solid bench (that is a work in progress.) Well, that and experience. With our cap situation there should be no problem holding the team together for a number of years.

 

[tleikheen]

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

 

[fishonjazz]

I am totally on board with Hayward and Favors being awesome players, I think they are great. I was saying pretty much what you said when you said Favors will not be Duncan, and would add that Hayward is not going to be LeBron.

BUT... there is no reason Hayward and Favors can't make this team a contender to have an outside shot at the finals. They are awesome players. It would just be awesome if Exum and Gobert become at least as good or better than Hay and Fav. Then we will have something very special.

Lots of folks be sleepin in Burks. It's all good though. I understand why.
He gonna wake you up next year though

#10
#TheReturn

 

[karl malone]

Agreed with whoever said that the concern is offense, especially come playoff time. I'm a firm believer in the saying that defense wins championships. I don't think you can win one without a great to elite defense, but at the same time, unless that defense is of all-time great caliber (or at least close to it), you still need some balance offensively. Defensively, I think we are going to be (if we aren't already, although last year was too small of a sample size to say for certain) championship caliber. With Exum, Favors, & Gobert in the starting 5, our defense is going to be good regardless of who else is playing alongside them. With Hood & Hayward (both of whom are above average to good defensive players) next to them, our defense has the potential to be the best in the league. Even without any improvements (& injuries obviously), I think a team with that starting 5 (plus Burks as the 6th man) has the opportunity to consistently be a top 4 seed in the WC because of it's defense (& good enough offense).

Imo, if we don't win a championship within the next 5 years, it will be because of our offense. Right now, we have Hayward (who is a proven #2 option), Hood (who showed the potential of a #2 option), & Burks (who appears to be best suited as a 6th man who can act as the 2nd units #1 option) as our main offensive threats. Favors has also shown that, given a solid PG, he can provide enough offense to be a #3/4 option on a championship caliber team. Gobert will likely always be limited offensively so, unless we somehow acquire/develop a true #1, how good our offense (& in affect our team) is will come down to what type of offensive player Exum develops into. He may have the quickness & athleticism to become a #1 scoring option, but unless he gains enough strength to become an elite finisher or turns into a knockdown outside shooter (neither of which are likely, imo), his offensive ceiling is probably that of a #2/3 option.

Our defense may just be good enough to overcome not having a true #1, but it is tough to win 4 out of 7 games, 4 times without a player who can score on his own & singlehandedly take over offensively when the game is close. We might be able to get by with an "offense by committee" if Hayward, Hood, Exum, & Burks are all #2/3 type scorers, but our defense will likely have to be elite in order to do so. Luckily though, it has the potential to be just that.

 

[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.

 

[Jazz4ever]

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.

And then you heighten the risk losing Favors the next year because your team takes a 10 win drop in the standings, and he thinks your going in the wrong direction.
The Jazz just need to get really good these next two years and it will be that much harder for Hayward to walk away.

 

[karl malone]

And then you heighten the risk losing Favors the next year because your team takes a 10 win drop in the standings, and he thinks your going in the wrong direction.
The Jazz just need to get really good these next two years and it will be that much harder for Hayward to walk away.

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

I think your idea is the bigger risk. No doubt that the timing of all of this is a big challenge, and it cannot be denied that Hayward is willing to look elsewhere, but circumstances will be different the next time Hayward goes into free agency and there are reasons to believe he would be interested in coming back. I'm sure the Jazz will be doing their best to predict (and influence) his mindset.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Agreed, just don't see that happening within 2 years with Exum (or Burke) as our starting PG. I don't see it happening, but personally, I believe that we should either trade Hayward for long-term assets or Exum for short-term assets. I'd be more comfortable having the extra year to convince Favors (who I believe is more convincable) & trading Hayward for prospects/draft picks. If I had to bet though, I'd assume we do neither, keep both Hayward & Exum, & hope that we are able to become competitive enough, quick enough, to retain Hayward. I think it's clear that we intend to attempt to retain our entire core, I just think it's a major risk (& one that I personally wouldn't take).

While I have doubts Hayward will return (or that he's worth $30M if he asks for that much), there's not a chance in hell I'm trading him. It sends the wrong message to the team to get back picks or lesser players in return. What we don't need is quantity: we have that. And Exum? Don't care if he takes a few more years to develop. We'll have him and Gobert under our control for their next contracts as RFA's.

I'd be ok with Lindsey saying he has to consider the entire team if/when Hayward gets his $30M from someone else. Teams are going to be spending like drunken sailors the next two seasons. Maybe if Hayward leaves, we can get a decent player for $15M. I think Hood will be a pretty adequate replacement for Gordon and Burks can be the other starter, leaving us in need of a third wing. Perhaps we even get one in the draft or via trade.