What's new
By:

"Surprised if Teague Doesn't End Up in Utah"

NAOS said:
I don't think Teague's age or experience are working against him, as far as the Jazz's FO is concerned. Don't know if those were factors in your reasoning, however.
Click to expand...

It's where he's at with his contract not necessarily his age. He only has 1 more year on an 8 million dollar contract. At which point the FO will have to decide to pay him and make decisions about the guys we have now a year early or let him go for nothin. I don't see the FO giving up assets to put themselves in that situation.
 
veji1 said:
Why on earth would we try to trade for Schroeder while our need is for experience and leadership at the PG position ???? Gee potential always has fans in knots. The jazz is loaded with kids, another one isn't the right move.
Click to expand...

I agree that going after Schroeder isn't the right call, but that's not really the logic you use for that. If we could go after Karl Towns, you do it. Who gives a rats *** what age he is?

I'm not as impressed with Schroeder as other people are. He's ok.

I like Exum more than Schroeder, and I don't even like Exum all that much
 
♪alt13 said:
It's where he's at with his contract not his age. He only has 1 more year on an 8 million dollar contract. At which point the FO will have to decide to pay him and make decisions about the guys we have now a year early or let him go for nothin. I don't see the FO giving up assets to put themselves in that situation.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that be the case with any FA? Contracts are pretty short nowadays.
 
Siro said:
Because he's a young player with a lot more upside who can grow with the team for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

But to grow this team needs to learn how to play better, to have some leadership around, to have players who have seen what playoffs are, etc... upside is great and all (if it materialises btw) but it's not what this team needs. Sure getting a surefire supertar would be great, but piling up "young promising players"... We have 6/7 of those already !

Teague brings you the experience of a deep run in the POs last year, of playing for a team who knows how to play, etc...
 
♪alt13 said:
You don't give up assets to sign a FA and you get 3 or 4 years. I don't really see where you're going with that question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, brain fart. What I meant was, players you trade for will always have a 1-3 year horizon afterwhich you'll have to renew their contracts.
 
♪alt13 said:
It's where he's at with his contract not necessarily his age. He only has 1 more year on an 8 million dollar contract. At which point the FO will have to decide to pay him and make decisions about the guys we have now a year early or let him go for nothin. I don't see the FO giving up assets to put themselves in that situation.
Click to expand...

He'll be valuable at next year's deadline; and maybe Exum will be in shape by then.
 
veji1 said:
But to grow this team needs to learn how to play better, to have some leadership around, to have players who have seen what playoffs are, etc... upside is great and all (if it materialises btw) but it's not what this team needs. Sure getting a surefire supertar would be great, but piling up "young promising players"... We have 6/7 of those already !

Teague brings you the experience of a deep run in the POs last year, of playing for a team who knows how to play, etc...
Click to expand...

I think Schroeder is already a good player. It's not like you're acquiring a project. He has more value than Teague, and should be acquired if possible. But I'm sure Atlanta is would much rather deal Teague.
 
I love the people who say we don't want to rent a guy for a year and a half... Most contracts are 4 years long now he's got 35-40% of his useful life left on that contract. Also, what if Dante isn't good and we resigned Teague because we wanted someone good... Also what if he doesn't go for crazy money in 2017 and stays even though Dante is playing well?

If the price is right we do it. Hawks have lost fairly badly on their more recent trades... Those are the teams you look to do business with. Start with Burke, a 1st rounder and cap fodder and move the discussions from there. I think Teague would do well here... Doesn't make us a title contender but you can't base that as the reason not to do a trade... Getting Teague moves the needle for us substantially for the next two years.
 
Hack said:
I agree that going after Schroeder isn't the right call, but that's not really the logic you use for that. If we could go after Karl Towns, you do it. Who gives a rats *** what age he is?

I'm not as impressed with Schroeder as other people are. He's ok.

I like Exum more than Schroeder, and I don't even like Exum all that much
Click to expand...

Of course because Towns or some other surefire young player isn't a question of "upside" or "potential" that keeps being discussed on boards. What posters keep saying about players like Schroeder is "let's take a chance on player x in the faint hope he turns into a super duper player, this is so much more fun than trading for a good established player where we know what we get".
 
NAOS said:
He'll be valuable at next year's deadline; and maybe Exum will be in shape by then.
Click to expand...

Cap nerds can correct me but while there is a jump in the cap in 2017 there is a projected decrease in 2018. Many teams may pull back in 2017 knowing that... Also if the spend like crazy this summer there may not be as many teams able to spend as we think there might be.

Long and short of it... We may be able to retain Teague in 2017 at a not insane salary. Teague and Dante can play at the same time. Would be ample minutes for everyone if needed.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I love the people who say we don't want to rent a guy for a year and a half... Most contracts are 4 years long now he's got 35-40% of his useful life left on that contract. Also, what if Dante isn't good and we resigned Teague because we wanted someone good... Also what if he doesn't go for crazy money in 2017 and stays even though Dante is playing well?

If the price is right we do it. Hawks have lost fairly badly on their more recent trades... Those are the teams you look to do business with. Start with Burke, a 1st rounder and cap fodder and move the discussions from there. I think Teague would do well here... Doesn't make us a title contender but you can't base that as the reason not to do a trade... Getting Teague moves the needle for us substantially for the next two years.
Click to expand...

Exactly, trading for a guy like Teague ensure that the team keeps growing and progressing, that players like Gobert, Hood, Hayward, Exum, Favors and co look in the right direction, learn to play better as a team. What happens next, we don't know, but keeping the growth going is important, starting to win is important, not stockpiling young players. Stockpiling young players is a but a means to an end.
 
I'd rather have Teague than Schroeder... I think Dante can be a super sized version of what Schroeder is supposed to become, but who the hell knows on Dante.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Cap nerds can correct me but while there is a jump in the cap in 2017 there is a projected decrease in 2018. Many teams may pull back in 2017 knowing that... Also if the spend like crazy this summer there may not be as many teams able to spend as we think there might be.

Long and short of it... We may be able to retain Teague in 2017 at a not insane salary. Teague and Dante can play at the same time. Would be ample minutes for everyone if needed.
Click to expand...

exactly, Exum's size means he could play along Teague, all this gives you flexibility.
 
I will be honest though I thought about AB on another team and it made me sad so I'd be mixed if he was the one moved.

There is no god damned way they get Hood for Teague. Hood will lead the team in scoring in the future.
 
Nope it is like saying we have Hassan Whiteside and Gobert. I'm talking about redundancies in skill sets. If you are for moving Alec Burks who does things that no one else is doing then that would be like your example with Gobert and Lyles.

Go back in time to when Demare Carrol was outplaying Hayward. Same scenario sooner or later we are going to have to make a choice with all of our players. Imagine where we would be if we kept Carrol...I think the exact same maybe better off.

There have been plenty of players that have been invited to USA basketball that haven't made the team that are just good players. I'm not saying Hayward isn't good. I'm saying he is Carlos Boozer that he is not what we are making him to be. On another team he will just be another role player. Meanwhile we have people trying to move Hoods or Burks who are players that haven't come close to hitting their ceilings.
 
Hack said:
That's like saying trade Rudy Gobert because Trey Lyles is the future. Or like saying trade Michael Jordan because Scotia Pippin is the future.

Why can't we have both?

btw, nobody is on the same page with you about Hayward being a scrub. Why do you think he gets invites to USA basketball? How do you explain him actually being a good player? He can't be a scrub and a good player. When he's on the court he plays good. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...
Nope it is like saying we have Hassan Whiteside and Gobert. I'm talking about redundancies in skill sets. If you are for moving Alec Burks who does things that no one else is doing then that would be like your example with Gobert and Lyles.

Go back in time to when Demare Carrol was outplaying Hayward. Same scenario sooner or later we are going to have to make a choice with all of our players. Imagine where we would be if we kept Carrol...I think the exact same maybe better off.

There have been plenty of players that have been invited to USA basketball that haven't made the team that are just good players. I'm not saying Hayward isn't good. I'm saying he is Carlos Boozer that he is not what we are making him to be. On another team he will just be another role player. Meanwhile we have people trying to move Hoods or Burks who are players that haven't come close to hitting their ceilings.
 
Mission Accomplished said:
Nope it is like saying we have Hassan Whiteside and Gobert. I'm talking about redundancies in skill sets. If you are for moving Alec Burks who does things that no one else is doing then that would be like your example with Gobert and Lyles.

Go back in time to when Demare Carrol was outplaying Hayward. Same scenario sooner or later we are going to have to make a choice with all of our players. Imagine where we would be if we kept Carrol...I think the exact same maybe better off.

There have been plenty of players that have been invited to USA basketball that haven't made the team that are just good players. I'm not saying Hayward isn't good. I'm saying he is Carlos Boozer that he is not what we are making him to be. On another team he will just be another role player. Meanwhile we have people trying to move Hoods or Burks who are players that haven't come close to hitting their ceilings.
Click to expand...

Then the GSWarriors better jump on trading Curry. Thompson makes him redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top