What's new
By:
Filters

Ricky Rubio

Sign me up, then go get his old running mate Love. Roll out Rubio/Ingles/Hayward/Love/Gobert for the ultimate mostly white guys lineup.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
The Jazz are a top 3 defensive team.

If the Jazz lose Hill, and as I prefaced part of the "Rubio is a bad fit argument", and Hayward, then the Jazz barely have any shooting. Yes, Rubio is an awful ****ing fit. We also play the slowest paced game in the NBA, furthering the wonkiness of the fit as the Jazz would have to change their style drastically to make Rubio fit, not only in pace, but in how they run their half-court sets also.

Why is this hard for you to grasp?

Further, if you are playing Rubio (and you keep Exum), then playing Exum/Rubio lineups is very difficult. Lineup versatility is part of Utah's identity. Signing Teo allows you to play more lineups that make more sense.
Click to expand...

DL must not think Rubio is a horrible fit because he's been in talks to trade for him.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I wonder if Cy ever realizes that he literally argues with everyone. How can he possibly think everyone is always wrong except if he embraces being a contrarian.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Pass. He needs the ball in his hands to be useful on the court because he can't shoot it. He just doesn't fit. If Hill costs too much I hope we can get Patrick Beverley. Teodosic would be okay depending on price.
 
NUMBERICA said:
This is actually precisely wrong. If you're talking "fit", then it's perfect in that he'd have the best mistake-eraser there is.
Click to expand...

I thought this was a common thought process.

I guess WC cant argue anymore, now that 3 people are on the side of "not a bad fit" he has to stop arguing or he is a contrarian.
 
I say pass unless we loose Ingles and the russian.
 
cowhide said:
So why would we give Minnesota a first?
Click to expand...

The thing is, it seems that they really want to get out of his contract to get a shooting PG.

The best route would be sign and trade (assuming Hill doesnt want to be here, or Jazz can't pay him enough to be here and the Wolves are able/do want to). Then you can trade Hill/Diaw and maybe even get a pick from the Wolves.

I wouldn't want to do that, but if Hill is set on leaving and wants to be in Minnesota, it's probably the best option. Or maybe involving a 3rd team who wants Rubio if the Jazz don't, that way the Jazz just get a draft pick asset and can go into FA to sign Teodosic (or whoever tickles their fancy).
 
White Chocolate said:
Rubio is a bad fit because he can't shoot.

Teodosic is a good fit even though he can't play defense.

We have players who can make up for his bad defense but even though we have players to make up for Rubio's bad shooting he's still a bad fit because I don't like him.

Cy's logic ^^^


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Who is making up for a point guard that can't shoot?

Answer: You can't, really. Furthermore, the Jazz don't have a real stretch/playmaking 4 (say whatever nice thing you want about Joe Johnson, but he should be on a strict minutes limit before the playoffs). The Jazz also don't have a 5 that can shoot 3s either. Rudy Gobert's offensive efficiency is more reliant on spacing than most players because he can't create in the post, can't shoot, and is entirely reliant on rolling to the rim.
 
White Chocolate said:
We're the perfect fit for Teodosic but he isn't the perfect fit for us.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand this concept.

The only thing I will add is that if I have to choose between a defensive traffic cone that can light it up from 3 (i.e. Steve Nash [who never had **** behind him, btw]), or the best defensive perimeter player ever that can't shoot (i.e. Tony Allen), I choose the former every single time. You can manage a deficiency on defense from this position, it is much more difficult to do the same thing for a lack of shooting. You can't have a great offense with a PG that can't shoot.

Conversely, if I have to choose between an elite C on offense but that is a traffic cone on defense (these are rare these days [for a reason, this style of ball is dumb and requires elite SPACING], but let's say... Al Jefferson a few years ago) or a guy that is unskilled offensively and is a perennial DPOY candidate (RUDY), I choose the former every single time. You can manage a deficiency on offense from this position, it is much more difficult to do the same thing for a lack of paint-protection (or some other-worldly ability to switch/guard 5 positions like Draymond Green). You can't have a great defense without a big protecting the paint.

We just so happen to have that center.
 
The only reason Rubio interests me is from the angle of moneyball. Otherwise? Yeah, sorry. Can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top