What to do with AK?

[Jazz4ever]

You forgot a few major reasons why people hate AK...
1: Complaining about his role during the post game interview after huge wins while everyone is celebrating.
2: Literally crying to the media about his role while the Jazz are in a tough playoff series.
3: Not giving a full effort.
4: Not improving key holes in his game.
5: Openly saying he wanted out of Utah.
6: Holding the franchise hostage and demanding a max contract.

How did you miss these?

Pretty much all these points only apply to that one year, or even one series. We don't know the whole story on what caused AK to break down that year but the guy is human and at least wasn't snorting coke, getting DUI's, or making rap records. Facts are Boozer changed the face of the franchise when he came here. He got all the touches AK was getting the previous year, bumped him out of his more natural position, and the BOXSCORE stats followed. Real stats (+/- and adjusted +/-) still say AK was, by a huge margin, a better player every year than Boozer was. Coincidences dont happen 6 straight years. It is indisputable.

 

[Stifle Tower]

AK getting a lot of minutes backing up Millsap will prove good. Knowing this going into the offseason I expect him to put on some more weight like he did last season, AK in the paint can get stuffs.

Except that ain't gonna happen once Okur is healthy. KOC talked about a 3-man rotation with the bigs. That means Jefferson, Okur and Millsap. AK's expiring will be shopped hard at the deadline. It's the only way for the Jazz to really improve. They're not going to use the Harpring TPE (due to being $5M in the tax already), won't have a pick, and would have to use the full MLE to re-sign AK. So it's better to get a player for AK, say a starting SF or SG making $8-$10M (and the rest in exprings or contracts that can be bought out). Then they'd also have the MLE available next summer.

If the parameters stay the same, or the tax threshold increases a bit, Jazz could add the player they got for AK + a player at the MLE and still be reasonably close to the tax line. Add two starters by those means, and you could then trade CJ for salary relief (Raja and Hayward would be the backups).

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

You forgot a few major reasons why people hate AK...
1: Complaining about his role during the post game interview after huge wins while everyone is celebrating.
2: Literally crying to the media about his role while the Jazz are in a tough playoff series.
3: Not giving a full effort.
4: Not improving key holes in his game.
5: Openly saying he wanted out of Utah.
6: Holding the franchise hostage and demanding a max contract.

How did you miss these?

Not that your going to agree with me but:
1. I Honestly don't remember him complaining openly after wins like you state, if he did I would like to hear it but I would bet he was bated into the question and he voiced his frustration and even after that your right I wouldn't have liked that.
2. He did literally cry but out of frustration, he cried because he cared and he wanted and knew he should/could help the team, that is better then not caring. But yes I was not a fan of him crying but lots of other players have cried on national TV (AK's was local that turned into national because it was during the playoffs).
3. Ya no argument that there are games he just seems disinterested in (not talking about bad games every player goes through those stretches) and it frustrated me to no end but I could also see he wasn't involved and let his frustration get the better of him. He is a grown man and should've handled it much better.
4. I guess this is one I can say I overlooked myself and that he should've done this and it ties in with #3 as far as being a man and handling the situation better had he improved (weight or jumper) maybe it would've forced the Jazz to do what he was hoping for.
5. I don't remember it in the same context as you, yes that ONE summer after the crying breakdown when asked said he would be open to leaving but never said he didn't like it here just again frustrated how he was being used.
6. Weakest of your arguments, he didn't hold anybody hostage, as was stated already if the Jazz didn't give him the max another team was going to, I also was resigned to the fact he was likely going to get it but wasn't happy about it. I thought as dynamic as he just showed being the face of an overachieving team (42-40) he was just off of being a max type player.

 

[Borat]

...AK was, by a huge margin, a better player every year than Boozer was... It is indisputable.

Now I have heard it all. You think many teams will be lining up to give him 80 mil next year like they did for Booz?

 

[InGameStrategy]

Now I have heard it all. You think many teams will be lining up to give him 80 mil next year like they did for Booz?

I thought that another JazzFan just explained that market value does not equal market price. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Just because AK doesn't get a mid-eight-figures contract next year doesn't mean that he's not close to the value to the Jazz that Boozer is--or more so--given that he plays on both ends of the court.

 

[write4u]

Unless AK has another All-Star season this year, no way he gets what Boozer gets. But I wouldn't be surprised, if he has a good year, to see a contract similar to the one Memo got.

 

[write4u]

I was thinking of my tif with Salty, the Loozer lover, who I once debated over and over who is better, AK or Boozer? Both of us undervalued our guy. I concede now that Boozer is a lot better than I portrayed him, but Salty continues to slam AK.

One classic example of what I mentioned earlier about AK guarding the best player in the 4th, was the game with Dallas late in the season when he guarded Nowitzki. Earlier in the season, Nowitzki had scored more than 20 points in a row in the 4th to lead the Mavs to a shocking comeback victory. AK never had a chance to guard Dirk in that game. Jerry stuck with Boozer, and then Okur, and I can't recall if he tried someone else, as well, maybe CJ. But he never tried AK, which a lot of us on here complained about. Well, in this game, not long before AK got hurt late in the season, he put AK on him and he held Dirk to two free throws the entire period. And of course, we won, going away.

This is what we mean that AK can still do it. He just needs to get his head on straight. Whether he will, that is the question. Maybe this is the year.

 

[Borat]

I thought that another JazzFan just explained that market value does not equal market price. Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Just because AK doesn't get a mid-eight-figures contract next year doesn't mean that he's not close to the value to the Jazz that Boozer is--or more so--given that he plays on both ends of the court.

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

 

[gregbroncs]

This board is literally the only place I have ever seen where getting steals was considered a bad thing. Well, I guess it's a good thing when AK does it at least...

It's not like Brewer was getting lit up by his man (or having the other team design game winning plays by taking it right at him in an iso play at the end of the game).

Umm where did I say getting steals was a bad thing. It's only bad because it hurt the rest of the teams' defense by gambling far too much. Brewer's man did not isolate on him because they stood in the corner awaiting their wide open shot or went back door when he overplayed the passing lanes. Brewer was routinely out of position when his man got the ball and it broke down the whole defense on numerous occasions each game. Brewer was decent when his man had the ball (unless they were posting his soft *** up) it was when somebody else had the ball that he seemed to lose track of the guy he is supposed to be guarding. Like leaving jump shooters wide open when your up 3 with seconds left.

 

[Jazz4ever]

Now I have heard it all. You think many teams will be lining up to give him 80 mil next year like they did for Booz?

The only reason Boozer got that money was because he was the beneficiary of four teams clearing massive payroll to play in the Lebron sweepstakes. Teams cleared payroll thinking they would need to afford 2 max FA in order to get Lebron. We know how it turned out, but Boozer was a consolation prize for the losers (Bulls, NJ) of the sweepstakes to keep fans somewhat happy. Remember last year, Carlos 'Im getting a raise regardless" Boozer couldn't get anything on the open market. KOC also tried to trade him before the season thinking a team might want his bird rights....he had no value.

 

[InGameStrategy]

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

Your dense diatribe appears to assume that the NBA 'market' is nearly efficient--which is patently false, given the inequitable intelligence and ego of NBA FOs/ownership; see Paul Allen and Wes Matthews' offer--and is irrelevant to whether AK (the recent AK) was and is as valuable to the Jazz as Boozer, if for no other reason than AK can score a bit and plays defense.

82games puts AK as slightly more valuable for the last season, and substantially more so two seasons ago, but I won't go that far.
https://www.82games.com/0910/0910UTA.HTM
https://www.82games.com/0809/0809UTA.HTM

 

[The Ghost of Blue Edwards]

InGame, market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, there is no argument there. However, that fact alone is not enough to justify Boozer getting 80 mil offers from 2 teams, whereas AK, as we all know, will not get anywhere near that number. Let's look at NBA labor market for a second. We had more than one teams with enough money to offer Boozer a contract, and 2 teams did. That alone might plant a seed of doubt of a theory of inefficient market, but I concede does not disprove it. Now, what is market inefficiency you are claiming here? And if there is an inefficiency why would it impact Boozer and not AK47? In other words, if one asset was able to command market price of 80 million, and according to you being overvalued, why wouldn't another asset of the same category, be overvalued as well? So, let's not just throw something out there, such as market price and value might differ in inefficient markets, and without any proof that it is indeed the case in this situation assume every contract does not represent market value. I agree some don't, but given the fact more than one team offered it to Booz, you would need more than just saying "market price and value might differ in inefficient markets" to justify that Booz's value is actually below that of AK. We both know that AK47 will not get 80 mil, because his value is lower than that of Boozer, and market price will reflect that - at least to a certain degree. Not because of any significant market inefficiencies. So, let's cut the BS, OK? Statement that AK is indisputably better than Booz is preposterous.

Market value does not equal tangible value. Look at the real estate bubble, subprime derivative packages, and the current gold bubble as examples to illustrate that efficient markets often overvalue goods.

The market places values on products based on theories, opinions and speculation. A product's "real" or tangible value are very different than market value. Just because the Blazers valued Wes Matthews at 7 million per year, does it mean that's what he's really worth?