Keep him. AK is underrated. Few players in the NBA have the ability to do the things AK can do without the ball. His passing and court vision add volumes to our offense.
I think David Kahn is a moron. But Darko is not a horrible player. He is just horrible for being drafted that high. Held to a higher standard.
He is a good passer and a good shot blocker. Bad rebounder and he has no post moves. Decent mid range shot. I would rather have Darko for 5 Million rather than Okur or 10 million. I think we are just as bad to sign Okur to that contract. And I was saying that last summer when it happened too.
Yes I can, if we're not taking salaries into consideration, which is what we've said about 50-million times we're doing. Seriously, I feel like a disgruntled adult trying to explain something to a small child. Let me see if I can make this more clear than we've already been.And again, you are the one missing the point. AK is probably a good mid level player, but he isn't better than Matthews, Gortat, Al Harrington, and a minimum player. That is what the Jazz could have if they weren't paying AK- all of those players. In fact, we could have had all of those guys plus another mid level player instead of Raja.
So right now, this year, while you say AK is under rated, he is actally hurting the Jazz. The Jazz would actually be a better team without him. And if the Jazz would be a better team without him, there is no way you can tell me he is under rated.
SaltyDawg, no offense, but you're the one who doesn't get it. How many times do we have to agree with you? AK has a bad contract. Conceded. There isn't a person in the world, except maybe Masha, who would dream of disagreeing with you. But that's simply not what we're talking about. But since we're on the subject, there is no guarantee the Jazz would have Gortat, Harrington, and whoever else is on your wish list if only they hadn't signed AK to all that money. In fact, they probably wouldn't have D-Will or Al Jefferson or Paul Millsap. The whole team would have been constructed differently. We'd have a completely different history. It's utter pointlessness to go down that road.
But for the record, AK wasn't responsible for the Maynor salary dump. AK doesn't make the front office decisions. If you want to be mad at somebody about it, at least have the balls to place the blame where the blame is due: on the Millers for not wanting to pay the luxury tax.
And I don't see the good in complaining about the Ronnie Brewer trade anymore, considering A) He got injured almost immediately following the trade. B) Wesley Matthews actually ended up being better for us. And C) That trade allowed us to bring in Al Jefferson.
I want Maynor back more than anybody. I loved the guy. But your anger at AK is at best misplaced, and at worst, not much more than sour grapes.
Yes I can, if we're not taking salaries into consideration, which is what we've said about 50-million times we're doing. Seriously, I feel like a disgruntled adult trying to explain something to a small child. Let me see if I can make this more clear than we've already been.
I agree with *everything you've said* regarding AK's contract. Everything. Yes, we could indeed have a number of good players for what AK's getting. Conceded. Agreed. But, for the 50-million and 1st time, we're not talking whether he's underrated *for his contract*. No one ever said that. Everyone agrees that he is overrated *for his contract*. Everyone. What we're talking about is whether he's underrated or overrated based purely on his basketball skills, divorced from any contract considerations. Fact is, his contract is so god-awful that a lot of people have grown accustomed to bashing him, which makes them miss how valuable he actually is. Imagine for the moment that all the NBA teams were disbanded and we started from scratch with a fantasy draft, and everyone was paid exactly the same salary. Salaries being equal, we're saying AK is underrated purely in terms of his basketball ability.
I really don't know why you want to grind this axe. You seem to want to discuss how much AK's salary has hurt the team. Well, yes, we all agree it has hurt the team! What do you want people to say? We all agree with you! Does it activate some primaeval urge in you to bash AK for someone to say he's still a good player, even if his contract is terrible? I said he's be good for the mid-level only, and you yourself said that "AK is probably a good mid-level player"! GAH! Why are you arguing this point when we already agree on everything? My goodness... this is not a difficult concept we're talking about.
But if you are telling me that he is under rated right now when the Jazz would actually be a better team without him, then you're crazy.
I'll say this for the last time. There are two basic ideas present in that sentence that have no real relationship to each other. Kirilenko being underrated has absolutely nothing to do with whether the team might be better without him. Those are two completely different topics. You keep throwing bizarre criteria into the conversation. It's not causal. Take out whatever unrelated arguments you want to make. AK is underrated. The end.
How do you still not understand this? Holy crap. We might not live in the same world. I live in a world where nuance is allowed.