What's new

Why does everyone think Milsap will accept a bench role?

I think we re not being creative enough here.

One potential scenario that addresses the issues...

Millsap starts at the three, with Favors and Big Al.

First substitution is a three coming in for either Favors or Al. Millsap moves to the four.

Second substitution is Favors or Al coming back in for the other...

Third, is Big Al and Favors together with Millsap getting a rest.

Fourth is Millsap back in at the three.

That way Millsap is a starter... at the three, but plays most of his minutes at the four, backing up Favors and Big Al.

I would not see Millsap having a problem with that. He would get 30-36 minutes per game, (starter minutes), 20-22 as a four, and 10-14 as a three.

It gives him the respect he has earned, allows them to manipulate the match-ups a bit and provides great depth in the front court.

This does not have to be the dilemma some of you want it to be.

Meanwhile the starting 3 from the other team scores 6-10 points on Millsap at the start of every half. I would rather address the problem at SF with a player having SF abilities. Millsap as a backup SF in certain situations is okay. Starting SF's will eat him alive.
 
I think we re not being creative enough here.

One potential scenario that addresses the issues...

Millsap starts at the three, with Favors and Big Al.

First substitution is a three coming in for either Favors or Al. Millsap moves to the four.

Second substitution is Favors or Al coming back in for the other...

Third, is Big Al and Favors together with Millsap getting a rest.

Fourth is Millsap back in at the three.

That way Millsap is a starter... at the three, but plays most of his minutes at the four, backing up Favors and Big Al.

I would not see Millsap having a problem with that. He would get 30-36 minutes per game, (starter minutes), 20-22 as a four, and 10-14 as a three.

It gives him the respect he has earned, allows them to manipulate the match-ups a bit and provides great depth in the front court.

This does not have to be the dilemma some of you want it to be.

Creatively fitting the square peg into the round hole. Doesn't matter how creative you get, it will not fit.

You are tying yourself into knots here to get Sap some time. Why try so hard? He is a backup PF, a very very good one, and leave it at that. If he cannot accept that, trade him.
 
can anybody verify this? perhaps a link?

Locker-room cleanout.

He is a link which states the same, but isn't from locke.

https://www.utahjazz360.com/astralmage/wow-milsap/

While looking around this moring I saw a new post by David Locke this morning. They just did locker clean out and he was present to some of the interviews and behind the scenes things that we are not privy to. Anyhow, it was interesting to hear about some of the things that Favors had said as well as Milsap, the latter of the two was actually shocking.

If your like Locke, you believe that Favors is our future. Being the future he should start next season so he can develop into our Super Star. That means one of two things, Milsap moves to the 3 or Milsap comes off the bench. So hearing the question asked of Milsap “what would you think of coming off the bench next season”? I hear Milsap say that he doesnt even want to think of that.. It sounded like he would not be happy with that at all, which is very understandable.

So, if you look at Milsap’s numbers especially the ones according to Locke about offensive efficiency, Milsap is through the roof . At least when compared to his team mates. The only one beating him in the efficiency catagory is Evans, who does not see Milsap’s minutes. We know he is all heart, plays defense, and improves every year. Milsap could start for many teams within the league and improve them imediately. Starting or coming off the bench he adds much depth to our team.

I believe Favors needs to beat Milsap out before being handed the reigns, and thought Favors coming off the bench behind Milsap and Al, he would get more than enough minutes and be able to develop and add much needed depth. I also think you start the better player, and Favors could turn into that next season if he meets expectations. I thought Milsap could move back and forth between the 3 and 4 depending upon matchups etc. But we are talking about what ifs.

So, all this being said, what if Favors beats Milsap out? What if Milsap cant make the transition to the 3 as well as we would like, or we draft someone who is more helpful there? Do we make Milsap unhappy, coming off the bench and hope we dont cut out his heart? Or, while he has some value, do we look at moving him, for other needed parts?

Well after all this I decided to look around and see what else was out there. I found in the Salt Lake Tribune stories of the Jazz moving forward and it talking about major change. I talked about how Favors and Hayward were the future. How harris and Al were going to have to take on major leadership roles. It covered how they would like to bring AK and Fes back, of course thats a whole other story and what if.. But there was a no comment when they talked about bringing CJ back for the end of his contract. Then they talke a bit about Milsap, and how they were not looking to trade him, but there are a lot of what ifs. Last they never talked about Okur.. Does this have another meaning? It was hinted that Bell may be a thing of the past as well, but who would take his contract?
 
I think as long as the coaching staff handles this the right way its fine. They cant just GIVE the starting role to Favors. He has to earn it. If he is able to out work and out play Sap in training camp, then he will win the starting spot. Sap cant complain about that. Hopefully both players will push each other to be better as they compete for more time.
 
thanks for the link, but I must say... that post is pure speculation and, for the most part, **** from top to bottom. Most importantly, it doesn't say that MilLsap wouldn't be willing to come of the bench, it says that he didn't want to think about that right now. difference.
No difference. Read deeper into the words. Its the nice way of saying "I'm the starter."
 
Imaging you a young middle manager at Jazz Fanzz Inc. with your degree, two years, and you are working you !#@ off. Tomorrow a college graduate comes in and in the first week your boss tells you "Well, this new guy has more potential than you. We're not going to pay him more just yet. But, we feel it is time for you to clean up your office and we are demoting you not because of you work. But, because of this new guy has the 'it' factor". How are you going to react? are you going to do what is best for a company the you feel just #@#$%$ you over? Or like Dwill who probably would have been here to stay if not for KOC say "well that is why I only signed a three year deal!"
 
Here is another analogy to start out with I'm not a fan of BYU football. Let's take their QB situation from last year you have Riley Nelson a solid athlete and a freshman star in the making Jake Heaps. Well, in this situation it is clear that you have to start Heaps ASAP because Riley isn't that great of a talent. That is similar to the Milt Palacio/Dwill moment of Jazz history.
But, let take that scenario and make it more relevant to the Milsap/Favors problem. Instead of Riley Nelson lets take Jake Heaps and now he is backing up Max Hall who just had a great year with you team. Heaps still has the 'it' factor. But, are you willing to move someone that is already competing at a competent level for your potential star (notice I said potential because he still isn't $@# in this league).

It the difference between molding Favors as a player Low to Minimal Risk/High Reward or gambling on an 18 year old potential star High Risk/High Reward.
 
No difference. Read deeper into the words. Its the nice way of saying "I'm the starter."

I don't know about the wolf part of your user name, but the lunatic part is apt as ****. You are up in the night. Thanks for confirming what I thought (Millsap doesn't have to be stoked about going to the bench, but he didn't raise a stink and he certainly didn't say he 'wouldn't' like you accused).
 
Back
Top