What's new
By:

Following 2016 potential draftees

Murray could step in and run point immediately, if need be, and he's a scoring machine. I want to see some damn shooters on the floor. Would feel good with Murray and Hood out there.
 
Dr. Jones said:
12 plus Hayward?
Click to expand...

Probably just Hayward or Favors w/o 12. You then use 12 to pick a back-up big or wing and promote either Hood or Lyles in the rotation. It feels hard to swallow, but not if the Jazz don't want to max both Hayward and Favors in the bigger picture. They'll both command that kind of money on the market.
 
Dr. Jones said:
Murray could step in and run point immediately, if need be, and he's a scoring machine. I want to see some damn shooters on the floor. Would feel good with Murray and Hood out there.
Click to expand...

This.
This move might get the Jazz the one thing they still don't have: a star.
 
King Cy said:
no
Click to expand...

No really, I have said that before. I believe it too. Remember Lillard was considered a combo when he was drafted, and he worked on his body when he got in the league. In terms of athleticism, both Lillard and Murry have the same standing reach and the same max vertical. Murray is a bit taller, and Lillard has a slightly longer wingspan. The difference is that Murray is coming out as a freshman. Murray's 3-pt percentage as a freshman in the ACC is the same as Lillard's as a senior in the Big Sky or whatever po-dunk conference. If anything, Murray looks like the safer prospect coming into the draft. Lillard doesn't play defense either.
 
Catchall said:
No really, I have said that before. I believe it too. Remember Lillard was considered a combo when he was drafted, and he worked on his body when he got in the league. In terms of athleticism, both Lillard and Murry have the same standing reach and the same max vertical. Murray is a bit taller, and Lillard has a slightly longer wingspan. The difference is that Murray is coming out as a freshman. Murray's 3-pt percentage as a freshman in the ACC is the same as Lillard's as a senior in the Big Sky or whatever po-dunk conference. If anything, Murray looks like the safer prospect coming into the draft.
Click to expand...
OK, by still, no.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
 
It would be a bold move by the jazz to trade hayward for #3. The thing i like most about murray is that he has the "it" factor.

I fell in love with him in the pan-am games. He just took over in the game against the us.
 
Crocodile Dante said:
It would be a bold move by the jazz to trade hayward for #3. The thing i like most about murray is that he has the "it" factor.

I fell in love with him in the pan-am games. He just took over in the game against the us.
Click to expand...

As intriguing as this move is, it's gonna set the Jazz back at least 2-3 years in terms of the rebuild process...
 
Which player can the Jazz more afford to trade and have a better remaining core: Hayward or Favors?

Which lineup would be better?

Option 1 - Trade Favors
PG: Exum, Mack, Neto
SG: Jamal Murray, Hood, Burks
SF: Hayward, Ingles
PF: Lyles, #12 Picked PF/C
C: Gobert, #12 Picked PF/C, Withey

Option 2 - Trade Hayward
PG: Exum, Mack, Neto
SG: Hood, Burks
SF: #12 Pick, Ingles
PF: Favors, Lyles
C: Gobert, Favors, Withey
 
mdalby said:
Which player can the Jazz more afford to trade and have a better remaining core: Hayward or Favors?

Which lineup would be better?

Option 1 - Trade Favors
PG: Exum, Mack, Neto
SG: Jamal Murray, Hood, Burks
SF: Hayward, Ingles
PF: Lyles, #12 Picked PF/C
C: Gobert, #12 Picked PF/C, Withey

Option 2 - Trade Hayward
PG: Exum, Mack, Neto
SG: Hood, Burks
SF: #12 Pick, Ingles
PF: Favors, Lyles
C: Gobert, Favors, Withey
Click to expand...
In option 2 we trade Hayward for nothing?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
So from a cap-management perspective, how many of these guys can the Jazz afford to pay max--Hayward, Gobert, Favors---assuming you want to keep Hood, Exum and Lyles on competitive deals and bring in a couple vets down the road? And assuming the Jazz can keep everyone, is it really a good idea?

Whether the Jazz decide to trade someone will primarily come down to the question of who they do and do not want to max out.

The Kanter situation came about because the Jazz didn't want to pay him $70M. I believe the Jazz really traded DWill because they didn't want to pay him $100M. In both cases, the decision to trade was the right decision.
 
Catchall said:
So from a cap-management perspective, how many of these guys can the Jazz afford to pay max--Hayward, Gobert, Favors---assuming you want to keep Hood, Exum and Lyles on competitive deals and bring in a couple vets down the road? And assuming the Jazz can keep everyone, is it really a good idea?

Whether the Jazz decide to trade someone will primarily come down to the question of who they do and do not want to max out.

The Kanter situation came about because the Jazz didn't want to pay him $70M. I believe the Jazz really traded DWill because they didn't want to pay him $100M. In both cases, the decision to trade was the right decision.
Click to expand...

Even if they can keep everyone, is that team good enough to be contenders? That's the ultimate question. DL is good, but not good enough to draft a championship team from scratch. Golden State drafted one superstar and two all stars, and still had to go out and get Iggy and Bogut for the final pieces of the puzzle.

So yeah the Jazz can keep everyone in the long run, but it brings them past the salary cap and have no ways to further improve outside of their draft picks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top