What's new

Tony Jones: Favors and Jazz unlikely to reach an agreement on renegotiation and extension

If only Stitches had a direct line of communication to Dennis Lindsey so he could drop all this salary cap knowledge on him.

We'll see how it works out in hindsight. But Lindsey is well aware of the situation and the rules. So let's just let him do his thing, it's worked out pretty well so far.

Heh, should we stop discussing anything basketball or salary cap related because the Jazz has people that know those things better than we do? Isn't that why we are here? To discuss stuff... with our non-expert opinions. You know... being fans and stuff.
 
Heh, should we stop discussing anything basketball or salary cap related because the Jazz has people that know those things better than we do? Isn't that why we are here? To discuss stuff... with our non-expert opinions. You know... being fans and stuff.

I wish you were around last week. Basically the board thinks you hate our team and are whiny if you want to discuss anything that might be slightly negative.

No new ideas... just high fives and first bumps okay.
 
If you want a backup big man, you hate Favors and think he can't read good.
 
No, they don't really. You can always trade a contract that is massively front-loaded and is bargain in the last 2-3 years. What not using this capspace does is all but guarantees we cannot keep this team past next year even if we want to, because we won't have the cap to re-sign him without going deep into luxury tax.

Yes, it actually does give them the time to decide the best path going forward. If they decide they want to trade Favors and keep some financial flexibility to re-sign some of the younger guys on rookie deals or free up cap space for a big trade, they can. And if they decide they want Favors longterm, they can re-sign Favors in 2018. It doesn't really matter whether he signs now or in 2018. Either way they're over the cap. But if you extend him now... that's it. This is the team you're counting on to become a champion because the flexibility is gone.
 
If you want a backup big man, you hate Favors and think he can't read good.

I think I was also accused of saying Luke Babbit was better than Favors because I thought we might be better with a big wing who can stretch the floor.
 
Yes, it actually does give them the time to decide the best path going forward. If they decide they want to trade Favors and keep some financial flexibility to re-sign some of the younger guys on rookie deals or free up cap space for a big trade, they can. And if they decide they want Favors longterm, they can re-sign Favors in 2018. It doesn't really matter whether he signs now or in 2018. Either way they're over the cap. But if you extend him now... that's it. This is the team you're counting on to become a champion because the flexibility is gone.

Not really... could still trade him unless he got hurt. The idea is use money now to lessen the cap hit later. Might be the difference between over the cap and over the luxury tax.

I think Favs may get moved in the offseason... likely after we have either re-signed Hayward or he has walked and we need a replacement.
 
Nah, you are definitely whiny. He left cap-space open hoping he could get an extension done and it didnt happen. The Jazz made trade offers involving 1st round picks (according to Locke) and it didnt work out. DL isn't a fortune teller, he can't full predict the future to know how to spend every dollar as efficiently as possible.

His job is to anticipate and learn from mistakes. With regard to cap space, he's done jack **** since taking on $25 of deadweight to acquire a (wasted) pick, the last pick of the first round this year, and some second-rounders that will almost certainly never have basketball value.
 
DL is no more than KOC clone and Borg of JAZZ!!!!! LYLES HAS NO BALANCES!!!!!! He will NEVER forget make pass on BOOKER!!!
 
I think I was also accused of saying Luke Babbit was better than Favors because I thought we might be better with a big wing who can stretch the floor.

It was my argument and I didn't accuse you of anything like that. I was trying to make the point that fit << skill and quality and just used an extreme example in Babbit.
 
Back
Top