What's new
By:

The Official 2014/15 Tank Watch thread

ONE LOVE said:
I refuse to believe we'll get Booker. We can't have x2 Bookers on our team. It's in the NBA constitutions.
Click to expand...
Not what I was getting at. I think the Jazz will go PF with their pick. WE already have several players who can play the 2: Burks, Hayward, Hood and even Exum - or our defensive specialist, Millsap. I think the pick - if not traded - will be Porzingis, Looney or Lyles. Have to make sure we have a player who can step in if Trevor Booker leaves or wants too much as a FA.
 
Stifle Tower said:
Not what I was getting at. I think the Jazz will go PF with their pick. WE already have several players who can play the 2: Burks, Hayward, Hood and even Exum - or our defensive specialist, Millsap. I think the pick - if not traded - will be Porzingis, Looney or Lyles. Have to make sure we have a player who can step in if Trevor Booker leaves or wants too much as a FA.
Click to expand...

Ah ok.. yeah me too. If Turner drops may be we can grab him too. I'm not really sold on him but he does play defense and can stroke it from range. Sounds like the perfect 3rd big.
 
I get the why, but I don't like drafting based on perceived needs. Needs change year to year based on dozens of factors. Holes in the roster, players not developing as hoped, players leaving or being traded, injuries. . .

Scout your *** off. Set your board and stick to it. Identify the best players and fits for your team. Aggressively try to acquire the guys you want the most. If a deal isn't in the making, follow your board and draft the highest rated player (regardless of position.) Fill holes through free agency and trades for veterans. If the best player is a wing, I hope they draft a wing. If it's a big, I hope they draft a big. Hell, even if it's a point guard, I hope they draft him.
 
^^
Yes, but if players are pretty equal, then "need" becomes the tie-breaker. And I think in that 8-12 range it's a crapshoot. Of course the Jazz will take BPA. But I just don't see that much separation between the players projected to go in that range.
 
Ellis269 said:
I get the why, but I don't like drafting based on perceived needs. Needs change year to year based on dozens of factors. Holes in the roster, players not developing as hoped, players leaving or being traded, injuries. . .

Scout your *** off. Set your board and stick to it. Identify the best players and fits for your team. Aggressively try to acquire the guys you want the most. If a deal isn't in the making, follow your board and draft the highest rated player (regardless of position.) Fill holes through free agency and trades for veterans. If the best player is a wing, I hope they draft a wing. If it's a big, I hope they draft a big. Hell, even if it's a point guard, I hope they draft him.
Click to expand...

I guess that argument works if player A and player B are far apart talent wise. If they are similar or it's just simply too close to call, then go for positional need every single time.


Sure you can draft the guy that's "slightly better", but when you have to trade that guy away in the future to fill your need, you might lose some value anyway.... so it might not be worth it.
 
ONE LOVE said:
I guess that argument works if player A and player B are far apart talent wise. If they are similar or it's just simply too close to call, then go for positional need every single time.


Sure you can draft the guy that's "slightly better", but when you have to trade that guy away in the future to fill your need, you might lose some value anyway.... so it might not be worth it.
Click to expand...

I like using the talent tier system... Think most teams subscribe to this theory. If there is a player in a higher talent tier available then take them regardless of fit. If you have multiple options in the same talent tier then take the best fit.
 
I think teams look at drafting the most rare and valuable asset when they pick. They're looking to get talent through the draft that will be difficult to get any other way. Talented bigs, legit stretch 4s, potential go-to scorers, etc. normally go near the top of the draft.

If the Jazz want a guard just to shoot the ball to space the floor a bit, they can actually get that through free agency and low-cost trades. Guys like Mo Williams, Randy Foye, Marvin Williams, Gerald Green, etc. can all shoot the ball, and can get picked up fairly readily. We were flat-out giving guys like that away a couple years ago.

This is why I'm not 100% sure we'd use a lottery pick to take Booker. It really depends on whether he can do more than just spot up and shoot the ball. What can he do better than Hood?

If we really can't get a starting caliber wing, someone who can put up 20 ppg, then I do think we may look at getting a versatile big who can really shoot the ball--basically, someone to replace Kanter. I think Looney, Lyles, Porter and Turner do come into play.
 
Catchall said:
I think teams look at drafting the most rare and valuable asset when they pick. They're looking to get talent through the draft that will be difficult to get any other way. Talented bigs, legit stretch 4s, potential go-to scorers, etc. normally go near the top of the draft.

If the Jazz want a guard just to shoot the ball to space the floor a bit, they can actually get that through free agency and low-cost trades. Guys like Mo Williams, Randy Foye, Marvin Williams, Gerald Green, etc. can all shoot the ball, and can get picked up fairly readily. We were flat-out giving guys like that away a couple years ago.

This is why I'm not 100% sure we'd use a lottery pick to take Booker. It really depends on whether he can do more than just spot up and shoot the ball. What can he do better than Hood?

If we really can't get a starting caliber wing, someone who can put up 20 ppg, then I do think we may look at getting a versatile big who can really shoot the ball--basically, someone to replace Kanter. I think Looney, Lyles, Porter and Turner do come into play.
Click to expand...
Great rebuttal and an excellent explanation on why they might go big at #11/12. I'd still prefer a starting caliber wing out of this draft. Someone with lights out offensive or defensive potential to pair with Hayward, but if they stay put I just want them to draft whoever they have rated the highest. I think they can still get a really solid player at their spot if they stay put and let the draft fall to them. Or possibly put together a package to move up a bit and snag a guy that they like a lot.
 
Stifle Tower said:
Not what I was getting at. I think the Jazz will go PF with their pick. WE already have several players who can play the 2: Burks, Hayward, Hood and even Exum - or our defensive specialist, Millsap. I think the pick - if not traded - will be Porzingis, Looney or Lyles. Have to make sure we have a player who can step in if Trevor Booker leaves or wants too much as a FA.
Click to expand...

Catchall said:
I think teams look at drafting the most rare and valuable asset when they pick. They're looking to get talent through the draft that will be difficult to get any other way. Talented bigs, legit stretch 4s, potential go-to scorers, etc. normally go near the top of the draft.

If the Jazz want a guard just to shoot the ball to space the floor a bit, they can actually get that through free agency and low-cost trades. Guys like Mo Williams, Randy Foye, Marvin Williams, Gerald Green, etc. can all shoot the ball, and can get picked up fairly readily. We were flat-out giving guys like that away a couple years ago.

This is why I'm not 100% sure we'd use a lottery pick to take Booker. It really depends on whether he can do more than just spot up and shoot the ball. What can he do better than Hood?

If we really can't get a starting caliber wing, someone who can put up 20 ppg, then I do think we may look at getting a versatile big who can really shoot the ball--basically, someone to replace Kanter. I think Looney, Lyles, Porter and Turner do come into play.
Click to expand...

Ellis269 said:
Great rebuttal and an excellent explanation on why they might go big at #11/12. I'd still prefer a starting caliber wing out of this draft. Someone with lights out offensive or defensive potential to pair with Hayward, but if they stay put I just want them to draft whoever they have rated the highest. I think they can still get a really solid player at their spot if they stay put and let the draft fall to them. Or possibly put together a package to move up a bit and snag a guy that they like a lot.
Click to expand...

Good to see this thread becoming the Anti-Booker thread as opposed to the 2015 draft thread which can easily be renamed "Booker-licious".


So this is now where we Booker-Anti-Homers reside.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Good to see this thread becoming the Anti-Booker thread as opposed to the 2015 draft thread which can easily be renamed "Booker-licious".


So this is now where we Booker-Anti-Homers reside.
Click to expand...


I like Booker, actually, but a lot of his value also depends on his ability to pass and create with the ball rather than just space the floor. If he's a more complete player than he's showing at UK, then he could rise obviously.

If Hood can get his 3-pt percentage up in the 37% - 38% range, he's more valuable than Booker because he'll rebound and use his length to defend. This is assuming Booker is just a spot-up shooter. It's not a given that Booker will be 40%+ from 3s in the pros.
 
Catchall said:
I like Booker, actually, but a lot of his value also depends on his ability to pass and create with the ball rather than just space the floor. If he's a more complete player than he's showing at UK, then he could rise obviously.

If Hood can get his 3-pt percentage up in the 37% - 38% range, he's more valuable than Booker because he'll rebound and use his length to defend. This is assuming Booker is just a spot-up shooter. It's not a given that Booker will be 40%+ from 3s in the pros.
Click to expand...

I just thought this would be a good place to discuss/critique Booker without getting my head chopped off.. LOL ..
 
If they limit Rudy's minutes or sit him altogether, you know they're less concerned about wins than draft position.

Favors, Booker, Hood, Millsap and Exum would have a rough time scoring and defending. Jazz MUST get a solid backup center for next year. I want Rudy's minutes somewhat limited to start next season so he's healthy and solid at the end of the year.
 
Ellis269 said:
Favors, Booker, Hood, Millsap and Exum would have a rough time scoring and defending. Jazz MUST get a solid backup center for next year. I want Rudy's minutes somewhat limited to start next season so he's healthy and solid at the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've been having dinner with coaches Pop and Kerr.
 
82 games is a long season. I don't like systematically taking all your top guys out for a game that you've chalked up as a loss or a win, but I think it's prudent to manage their minutes wisely. The Jazz have the potential to build a deep bench here in the near future. You use tgat to get you through the season healthy and rested so that your top players can play at their highest level in the playoffs. If you can do it and still win games, then why wouldn't you do that?
 
Ellis269 said:
82 games is a long season. I don't like systematically taking all your top guys out for a game that you've chalked up as a loss or a win, but I think it's prudent to manage their minutes wisely. The Jazz have the potential to build a deep bench here in the near future. You use tgat to get you through the season healthy and rested so that your top players can play at their highest level in the playoffs. If you can do it and still win games, then why wouldn't you do that?
Click to expand...

Is that like a new advanced stats measurement? What's the formula?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top