What's new
By:

Following 2016 potential draftees

Thee jazz fan said:
I admit as much in my last post, but Hayward is really good IMO and there's still a chance we get very little from pick 12 and just a decent player with pick 3. Still it makes me think but then hang up the phone if the C's were the ones calling me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
And I don't know if you saw one of my posts from yesterday but I said that I would be fine with the jazz maxing Hayward.
We would still have a young cheap team full of good players with lots of future picks.

I believe that is the case whether you trade or keep him.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Looking at the entire team. We have a high profile player at every starting position and two good players at almost every position. This is a very deal team top to bottom. I'm just a bit confused how this isn't one of the deapest teams in the NBA.
Click to expand...


We agree the Jazz HAVE DEPTH. Where's the confusion? Is it that in spite of the depth, the Jazz are a lottery team yet again?

I'll say it again: Jazz need a star.

After trading Hayward, the Jazz will still have depth (but hopefully will gain a star to take over games).
 
cowhide said:
Jazz bench was bad last year. It got worse with the loss of Exum and Burks. The bright spot was Lyles but the Jazz 's bench will be better with the return Exum and Burk because now Mack goes to the bench which will add some scoring ability.
Click to expand...

Mack offers scoring ability? He's awful offensively.
 
Catchall mock---

Phi: Simmons (franchise player)
LAL: Ingram (alpha scorer at the wing)
Bos: Murray (alpha scorer in the backcourt)
Phx: Bender (versatile potential mismatch)
Min: Chriss (upside PF next to Towns and Wiggins)
NOL: Dunn (replacement for J'rue Holliday)
Den: Brown (too much potential to pass on, Skal too risky. Ellenson could go here.)
Sac: Hield (too good a shooter to pass on)
Tor: Poeltl (rare opportunity to get a legit 5)
Mil: Baldwin (need a 2-way PG, could take Ellenson)
Orl: Richardson (Interesting pick here. They'd like to upgrade at the PG and would like a rim-protecting 5, but Murray and Skal are too risky to pass on Richardson)
Uta: Ellenson (Jazz try to move up, but don't; they choose btw Skal and Ellenson)
Phx: Skal (Upside pick, might trade given that they took Bender)
Chi: Korkmaz or D. Jackson (solid player at a position of need)
 
Last edited:
MDAV28 said:
The question wasn't if Valentine is as good or better than Hield. The question was is it #6 to #23 prospect difference?
Click to expand...
Idk. Shooting the three ball is so important in this day and age. So how much better at shooting the three do you think hield is than Valentine?

Just looking at stats hield shot 46% from three on 8.7 attempts per game.
Valentine shot 44% from three on 7.5 attempts per game.

That's much closer than their draft positioning says so you might have a point.

2 pt % for hield was 55
Valentine was 48

From the line for hield was 88
Valentine was 85.

Hield averaged 25 points and Valentine 19. (Hield played 2 more minutes per game)

Valentine averaged much more rebounds (7.5) and assists (7.8) than hield (5.7 and 2.0)

Interesting. Maybe valentine is better than I thought. On paper looking at box score stats they are pretty damn close.
 
#bern said:
I don't think Burks is a good fit here. That's why I don't want him. I just think our bench is pretty weak. Neto needs to improve a ton, Lyles needs to improve a ton, we still need another front court player, we need wing depth which we don't have outside of Burks.
Click to expand...
Mack is the backup point guard imo. So that should eleviate your concern of neto playing.

Now whether Mack is a good backup point guard or not is another debate entirely.
 
#bern said:
The point is that the chance of getting a star in that range is extremely low.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree. For me a low chance is better than no chance.

Especially when I believe that the 12 and 3 pick and a free agent wing could replace Hayward nicely anyway even if that 3rd pick isn't a star. Plus no 30 million contract as the cherry on top.

Again, I see it as low risk (losing Hayward is not a big risk since the 3, 12 picks and a free agency could easily replace him imo) and high reward (#3 being a star) even if that high reward is unlikely.

But you probably think that the draft picks and free agency couldn't replace Haywards production and efficiency. That's where we disagree.
And I do respect your position on that. I just don't share it.
 
fishonjazz said:
Idk. Shooting the three ball is so important in this day and age. So how much better at shooting the three do you think hield is than Valentine?

Just looking at stats hield shot 46% from three on 8.7 attempts per game.
Valentine shot 44% from three on 7.5 attempts per game.

That's much closer than their draft positioning says so you might have a point.

2 pt % for hield was 55
Valentine was 48

From the line for hield was 88
Valentine was 85.

Hield averaged 25 points and Valentine 19. (Hield played 2 more minutes per game)

Valentine averaged much more rebounds (7.5) and assists (7.8) than hield (5.7 and 2.0)

Interesting. Maybe valentine is better than I thought. On paper looking at box score stats they are pretty damn close.
Click to expand...

On 3PT attempts, If you average over their last two years, Hield is 41.3% Valentine is at 43%
 
I think the Jazz are going to come away with one of Ellenson, Skal or Baldwin. Korkmaz or Richardson are additional possibilities. In any case, we should get a top-7 rotation player for the future.
 
Jazz4ever said:
On 3PT attempts, If you average over their last two years, Hield is 41.3% Valentine is at 43%
Click to expand...
Yep they are closer statistically than their draft position is.

I don't know why since I watch very little college ball.

Anyone here know why hield is looked at as the much better prospect?

Valentine is the better rebounder, passer, and arguably shooter, and has better size (same height but Valentine is quite a bit bigger)

I think they are probably about the same age too since they both played 4 years.
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep they are closer statistically than their draft position is.

I don't know why since I watch very little college ball.

Anyone here know why hield is looked at as the much better prospect?

Valentine is the better rebounder, passer, and arguably shooter, and has better size (same height but Valentine is quite a bit bigger)

I think they are probably about the same age too since they both played 4 years.
Click to expand...

Quickness, athleticism and some ability to create a shot off the dribble.
 
I don't think Hayward is that easily replaced tbh. There really aren't any good two way wings in this draft, and all the ones in free agency are poor versions of Hayward.

Again, on a team with an average pace, he's pretty much a 21/6/4 guy that plays really good defense. If we could sign a free agent like that, everybody would go nuts. Since he's here, people don't like him.

We had the 5th best point differential in the West without even an average PG, and our best defensive player injured for quite a while. What more was Hayward supposed to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top