Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Utah Jazz' started by Shad, May 7, 2019.
Everyone: I co-sign virtually everything HH says. Just know that ahead of time.
Have no idea how you got that idea but sure.
Your last sentence said that you would be down to trade him in order to pick up a stud. I got that idea from what you posted.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
I think the idea of not selling low is appropriate when you’re talking about can’t-lose scenarios. Like, there’s no reason to sell low because you won’t get anything, and there’s nowhere to go but up. However, I think of Exum less as a deflated stock and more as an overpriced time share. Any way you slice the sale of a time share, you’re ‘selling’ low because of the cost, but there’s also a cost and obligation to keeping it — enough so that you’re willing to take a loss to get out.
Yeah but in this scenario the stud would be one of those true super max guys like Durant or Kawhi. Favors is still the first to go for most FAs like Kemba or Tobias for me just because the opportunity cost is less since he'd just need to be waived vs trading picks to dump Exum.
I’ve been a huge DL proponent. I believe it’s about taking the right shots and not just judging everything in hindsight. I believe trying to keep Hayward was a good shot, and perhaps there were indications we should have seen, but I don’t know. It was right to move that team forward. I believe George Hill was the right move. Hell, I think Derek Fisher was a dynamite move, despite how it ended up, and he was a big part of our WCF run, even though he couldn’t throw it into the ocean when he played for us.
But, I’m starting to have some real doubts about DL’s shot selection. Or, rather, his clock management that’s leaving us with bad shots, but we rationalize how they aren’t bad shots because “we didn’t have much time on the clock and so we took what we got,” and not putting together the entire context of all the decisions that led to passing up good shots to ultimately settle for garbage right before a shot clock violation.
I didn’t care for KOC’s management philosophy. He was so average that he was bad. He had good moves, bad moves, and average moves, but he overvalued things that had little impact on our progression, and brought the same team back three years in a row to be beat by the Lakers in successively less games each year. People rationalized that because LA won championships one or two of those years. Cool. I’m deathly afraid that this is what DL is turning into. I recall an off-season where KOC said “re-signing Jarron Collins is our biggest priority this summer,” and while Favors is better than Collins, these Tony Jones comments essentially have that same vibe — “Hey, trust us, magic will somehow happen because we see what you can’t.”
I worry that this summer will be DL’s “Harpring and Collins FTW!!!1”
To me he is the guy who has been with his girlfriend for years but can’t commit to marrying her... like it could be a mistake or with your non commital attitude you make it have less likelihood of working... either **** or get off the pot.
If you love Favs then you shoulda put a ring on it last summer and got him on a long term favorable deal. I know you want flexibility but Favs on a 4/48ish deal is a better trade asset than Favs on an expiring.
If we fail to get that third star/secondary scorer it is a failure. I know it won't be easy to acquire that type of player. But it would still be a failure if we don't.
George Hill was not the right move. At the time or in hindsight.
Any scenario where Crowder and Rubio aren't upgraded. Stay pat everywhere else. We shot TWENTY-SIX POINT THREE percent from 3. Mitchell and Ingles shot like crap, granted. But I don't want to give up on them by any means. My dream scenario would be move Mitchell to the 1, bring in Jimmy Butler at the 2, and Kevin Love at the 4.
We hit 35% from 3, and we're past those m-fers.
I feel in order for Donovan to take a step forward he needs more help on offense. So what happens this off-season in free agency is critical.
That cuts deep.
Can we stop with the terrible analogies?
They went from out of the playoffs to the second-round and that was the biggest move they made.
It turned out pretty well. Especially since the Jazz could’ve ended up with another Tony Bradley.
The Jazz "ran it back" one damn year and y'all act like the Jazz have been doing it for 5.
They virtually ran it back in all of the go-nowhere years of Hayward, until they felt they had to be proactive and ended up making the jump then. The cakk bakkd but the middle collapsed (sorry about the figurative language).
But only because they felt heat.
Nah, not really.
They made several rosters changes every year.
What major pieces came and went? Kanter, who they got cents on the dollar for AFTER he forced his way out?
The boldest thing Lindsey has done in 7 years was let three really nice players walk in free agency (all so we could end up with Dante Exum). Trading up for Mitchell and Gobert were absolute no-brainers. Trading up for Burke was a no-brainer at the time, and he didn't have to trade a player. Most of his moves are trading draft picks.
He falls in love with his own players, and he sits on assets too long.
I think for him to step forward is to master that mid-range shot like CJ McCollum because he can get that whenever he wants, and it will open things up for him to get higher percentage shots from 3.
They failed to address the biggest and most obvious roster issue and in fact complicated it by adding Ricky to the mix... and then waited it out another 2 years. The Hill move was nice and worked out pretty well until he became a little bit of a turd... his toe was obviously another issue but on court that worked.
They haven't run it back for five years, but they have punted using cap space over that period for band aid signings (Booker, Johnson, Udoh/Jonas/Thabo) or taking in guys like Diaw and Novak. They could have signed guys to long term deals but wanted flexibility... flexibility hasn't turned into anything... so that is where we have grown impatient and the organization stagnated imo.