What's new
By:

Why does everyone think Milsap will accept a bench role?

Yea... I don't understand either how ppl on this board "know" if a player wants to stay here or not. Bottom line is that I would rather have favors out there on the court now instead of millsap. I don't care if millsaps offense is alot better than favors.. favors D causes problems, and he has a presence Defensively while he is out there. Favors/Gordon is the future of the franchise.. Millsap will NEVER lead us to a championship so chau
 
It is not about working hard to get a starting spot, it is about playing team ball and taking on the best role to help us win, now or in the future. I know player's egos don't let them think that way (other than Ginobili) but it would do them well to think along those lines. This is a lot like the "I am getting a raise regardless" thing. All that matter is that I am the starter, that I get a bigger contract, that I am the star. The money will come, so will the accolades, and moreso if the players play to win rather than play to be recognized. We are in this for the championship and if we have a player that is not on board with that, then trade them for someone who wants to win more than see their dunk in the sports center highlights.
 
Lets look at it. Milsap struggled when he played more than 30 minutes per game, he struggled against taller/longer competiton, he is too slow of foot to gaurd sf on the perimeter,he was the 8th worst defender in the nba, he was a locker room problem when Boozer came back from injury and Milsap insisted he was still the starter, Al Jefferson and Favours are both pf not centers.

Further he is overpaid for his position-- an undersized pf makes about 4-5 million per season, is easy to replace ( Maxiel, Bass, Landry, Hayes, ) and there are several skilled undersized pf in every draft.
 
Millsap has a hard time scoring and rebounding against skilled length. He can't keep his energy level up with starter's minutes.

Most other competitive teams would bring him off the bench too.
 
If Millsap really said he would not accept a bench role, I'd be disappointed in his putting himself above the team winning. That's very surprising from a hard-working blue-collar guy like him; in which case he should be traded. OTOH, I have noted him whining way too much at refs late this season. Maybe his ego's gotten the best of him; surprising...
 
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.
 
Starting Millsap at the three then subbing three minutes into the game will not allow two players to get into a rhythm to start a game. You are giving the other team too big of an advantage by doing that. Why don't you just start Favors and Al, and after 8 minutes bring Millsap in for 8 mins and so on. At halftime you have Favors with 16 minutes, Al with 16 mins, and Millsap with 16 mins (I think). Do the same for the second half. Favors and Al to start the second half. Then, for the last 8 minutes, go with matchups which may include Millsap at the three. Starting Millsap at the three just to start him and then subbing three minutes into the game is not a good idea.
 
This argument is silly. You've got 144 minutes a game at front line positions. With the current team, play Millsap , Jefferson, Favors, and Kirilenko 30 minutes each. I don't want any of those guys guaranteed 38 minutes. Let's see what they do with 30 minutes first.

That leaves 24 minutes for guys like Fes or Evans or Miles to see some court time as well. (Miles will also see time at SG.) It doesn't matter who starts, tell the players to focus on winning the game with their 30 minutes. If they are more concerned with whether they are starting , than whether they are doing everything they can to win for the team and improve their effectiveness during the minutes they spend on the court, then start Fes, Favors, and Evans.

The team's problem is finding 7 guys who can play 30 minutes well enough to be a winning team. Guaranteeing the guys who can't rebound and play defense for 30 minutes isn't going to be solved by giving those same guys a guaranteed 38 minutes and a guaranteed starting spot.
 
mfree said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mfree said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NAOS said:
can anybody verify this? perhaps a link?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top