What's new
By:

So who are the players we should offer max deals to?

Thee jazz fan said:
So we should add a max contract to our deepest area on the wing where we already have Burks and Hayward under contracts for 3-4 years and Hood under team control for a long time. And I can't say Hood is going to demand 10+ million, but he sure as hell looks like he's headed in that direction. We bloody well don't need another core guy on the wing. Here's an idea. Let's look at what we do need to have a more well rounded team. Maybe a stretch 4 or a backup pg or a backup C. Why the hell do we need 4 high profile wings?!?! How many shots do u think are for this team? Christ! Let's use some of this money to resign Gobert who might command Hayward money after next season and if Exum reaches even half his potential then he's going to need to get paid, and Hood will be in the same boat if he builds off what he did late in the season. Hell! It's possible he could end up being better then Hayward.

I'm not psychic or specially brilliant, but I know how to trust what I see with my eyes. There is no reason to think Burks wont be here.

What I do see is that Hayward and Favors have three more years and are the table setters for this team. Burks and Hood will be here a long time and will probably both deserve to start, but both can't, so why in the **** do we need to sign a max wing in free agency? It will be hard enough keeping Both Hood and Burks happy if they both think of them selves as starters.

I do know the Jazz need a backup C and a pg and one more bench scorer. So where in the hell does another max wing player fit into the equation?

This has nothing to do with brilliance or foresight and everything to do with commonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand how your brain is working, your sense is certainly "common" and it is extrapolating the past and lacking imagination about the future.

Your scenario assume we keep both Burks at $10m per year and Hood in the case where we sign an elite wing. For example, in a scenario where we sign Kawhi you don't think we would parlay Burks into other assets (perhaps a backup C? or solid vet PG?)

Just because these are things that are beyond your imagination does not mean it is beyond "idiots" like DL. DL talks about strategies such as this on on a pretty regular basis.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
So we should add a max contract to our deepest area on the wing where we already have Burks and Hayward under contracts for 3-4 years and Hood under team control for a long time. And I can't say Hood is going to demand 10+ million, but he sure as hell looks like he's headed in that direction. We bloody well don't need another core guy on the wing. Here's an idea. Let's look at what we do need to have a more well rounded team. Maybe a stretch 4 or a backup pg or a backup C. Why the hell do we need 4 high profile wings?!?! How many shots do u think are for this team? Christ! Let's use some of this money to resign Gobert who might command Hayward money after next season and if Exum reaches even half his potential then he's going to need to get paid, and Hood will be in the same boat if he builds off what he did late in the season. Hell! It's possible he could end up being better then Hayward.

I'm not psychic or specially brilliant, but I know how to trust what I see with my eyes. There is no reason to think Burks wont be here.

What I do see is that Hayward and Favors have three more years and are the table setters for this team. Burks and Hood will be here a long time and will probably both deserve to start, but both can't, so why in the **** do we need to sign a max wing in free agency? It will be hard enough keeping Both Hood and Burks happy if they both think of them selves as starters.

I do know the Jazz need a backup C and a pg and one more bench scorer. So where in the hell does another max wing player fit into the equation?

This has nothing to do with brilliance or foresight and everything to do with commonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1. If Utah had any chance at all to bring in Leonard, you don't turn that down because of Burks and Hood, no matter how much fans like those players. Player values are about to make a ridiculous jump, so any chance to add significant talent must be capitalized on immediately, regardless of any rotation issues, which can be worked out later.

2. Utah has no chance at Leonard, so I guess the point is moot.
 
freakazoid said:
And yet, he's still a more realistic option than Butler, Middleton and Leonard.
Click to expand...

Here is a funny tidbit. Butler is in Chicago. Leonard is in SA. I'd bet most of us wouldn't leave SA or Chi for less money to come to Utah, yet we think those two would. Middleton is in Milwaukee, so I think Utah is a better location, but we don't need Middleton. We have a player who looks to be better than Middleton under contract for about 1 million per year. So I don't see how paying Middleton max dollars when we have someone just as good already on our team for 1 million is a smart move.
 
freakazoid said:
And yet, he's still a more realistic option than Butler, Middleton and Leonard.
Click to expand...

Yep. All this arguing about a max FA is just pissing in the wind. The RFA's will be matched. The UFA's aren't coming here. The Jazz are a 38 win team. And it's UTAH for freakin' sakes!

MAYBE...and I say MAYBE because it never happened with Stockton/Malone...IF the Jazz make it to 50 wins next season and show well in the playoffs, a few FA's would give Utah some consideration.

Utah has a much better chance of finding success with internal growth and making a few key trades as needed. And DL can scour the NBA and the DLeague for good-value backups like Booker, Ingles, Millsap, etc.
 
freakazoid said:
1. If Utah had any chance at all to bring in Leonard, you don't turn that down because of Burks and Hood, no matter how much fans like those players. Player values are about to make a ridiculous jump, so any chance to add significant talent must be capitalized on immediately, regardless of any rotation issues, which can be worked out later.

2. Utah has no chance at Leonard, so I guess the point is moot.
Click to expand...

Also, if we got Leonard (not possible or anything), we could play him or Hayward as the backup PF to give our wings more minutes.
 
What about some real roster shake-ups? Think we could pry Aldridge away from Portland? How about Lopez from Brooklyn? Would you rather have Favors and Gobert or Aldridge and Gobert? I don't know, I think we might be able to play around a bit more in ways that might be interesting. I like Kawhi and think you jump on that if he shows interest, but at the same time that is our least worrisome position right now, and, while you draft for BPA and not position, free agent signings and trades are meant to shore up positional deficiencies. Unless you can luck into one of those very few generational players.
 
I like the possibility of trading for a Ty Lawson type guy... One guy that I think would be good is Kyle Lowry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fakers Luck said:
The only way I see a studly RFA like that coming to Utah is if they sign a max offer with an opt-out clause after their first year, so they can make bank with the new salary cap jump.

I'm not a CBA expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong with the following scenario:

Let's say Kawhi Leonard signs a max deal (25 percent of the salary cap for players of six years’ experience or less) this offseason and his team offers an opt-out clause after year 1. That puts him in the $16M per yr range (2015-16: 67.1 million) say, with annual raises of 4%.

Then, if Kawhi opts out of this summer's deal after his first year, he becomes an unrestricted free agent. With the higher cap (2016-17: 89 million), his first year salary is now $22M.

If he has another opt-out clause in the subsequent deal and exercises it with the next jump (2017-18: 108 million), all of the sudden, he's making $32M as a seven year vet making 30 percent.

Is this even possible? If so, I think the next couple of years we'll see very few long-term contracts signed by players hoping to cash in.

Maybe wait on signing big names for a couple years until the studs are are unrestricted. Then that will provide the current roster enough time to know where the biggest needs truly are.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding.
So Let's just put it in lay terms. They only reason somebody signs a long term max is:
  • they are getting overpaid by more that 50%
  • they are really conservative and want to cash in before injury takes. You could instead take insurance and still be conservative and have great pot odds..Or even better add a player option.
I can't fathom anybody is going to get a great deal like the players don't know they can make tens of millions more by negotiating shorter term deals. All of these threads are a fairy tale! We might screw somebody by offering player options like happened with Hayward, but those deals are matched and we lose Booker.

DOL know this and have tons of draft picks, especially second rounders for this reason. They also have a ton of non-guaranteed contracts to bail out teams that screw themselves by overspending before the cap jump, then realizing that resigning their own players is going to cost them way more than they thought. Only a few GMs are that dumb, but for the Brooklyns and Knicks of the NBA, there will need to be a way to dump salary and it keeps options open.
 
vegas said:
Ding ding ding.
So Let's just put it in lay terms. They only reason somebody signs a long term max is:
  • they are getting overpaid by more that 50%
  • they are really conservative and want to cash in before injury takes. You could instead take insurance and still be conservative and have great pot odds..Or even better add a player option.
I can't fathom anybody is going to get a great deal like the players don't know they can make tens of millions more by negotiating shorter term deals. All of these threads are a fairy tale! We might screw somebody by offering player options like happened with Hayward, but those deals are matched and we lose Booker.

DOL know this and have tons of draft picks, especially second rounders for this reason. They also have a ton of non-guaranteed contracts to bail out teams that screw themselves by overspending before the cap jump, then realizing that resigning their own players is going to cost them way more than they thought. Only a few GMs are that dumb, but for the Brooklyns and Knicks of the NBA, there will need to be a way to dump salary and it keeps options open.
Click to expand...

Any what team is going to let a one year player "go get his" at the expense of the team?
You might have a case where players sign 2 year deals, but players around 28-30 will want security because they are competing against father time (injuries/performance drop off) and a boat load of other free agents in 2 years.
 
The Jazz will be able to bring in some bench help this offseason, then will have a bunch of cap space for 2016 and NO major free agents to address (unless you count Booker/Jingles) next offseason season. While most teams will be able to retain their own, the Jazz would have the luxury of hiring a (very well paid) mercenary to get up to the cap floor while they figure out how much it costs to retain Favors, Hayward and Gobert. They could grab some assets in a salary dump, but I think they're past that stage at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top