Gordon on moving to Celtics

[JimLes]

Aks best season was at 22. He went down hill from there. Also so of his stats that year are probably boosted due to having a severe lack of talent and someone had to get stats. On good teams he didnt do much.

So, wait. You're using the fact that AK had bad teammates that year against him? Again, dude dragged at 42-win team with Greg Ostertag as its second most impactful player to 42 wins. And somehow Gordon Hayward, who needed George Hill and a healthy Gobert to finally lead the Jazz to a winning record, is a better player?

Again, please look at the 03/04 roster, then look at the 15/16 roster. Are you actually going to argue that Kirilenko and Hayward aside, you can compare those? You're actually going to argue that a man who went 40-42 with that roster is a better player than a man who went 42-40 with the other one?

 

[akirac73]

It always puzzled me why there was so much hate for AK by Jazz fans, but then there was this disturbing/creepy amount of adulation and hype for Haywood...was it the hair?

Comparing both players thru their first 7 seasons for the Jazz...

Kirilenko:
All-Rookie First team
1 x All-Star
3 x All-NBA Defense
led the league in blocks 2005-06
276-216 team record
53 win shares
+/- 6.2 (avg)
2 triple-double games

Haywood:
1 x All-Star
never led the league in any statistical category
248-268 team record
43 win shares
+/- 2.0 (avg)
0 triple-double games

I'd say Heywood showed more growth and improvement over his tenure, but in totatlity, Kirilenko was the better player over the same period of time. The numbers simply bear this out.

 

[Douchebag K]

listened to it against my better judgement. Zero as far as being revealing or enlightening. Just the same image shining insincere BS, and just can't be taken by his old teammates as anything but a slap in the face. Anyone who doesn't think he knew he wanted to go to Boston a couple of years back is just kidding themselves. So little regard for any cameraderie with his teammates is just plain weird.

Enjoy being the teachers pet in that locker room and media market.

 

[MilesDeep]

Anyone who says Hay was better than AK at his best is either really young and never watched him, or really stupid. AK was about as effective as LeBron for a period of time, unbelievable difference on both ends of the floor. Didn't last long, but it was awesome while it did. Eisley ended Kirilenko as we knew him. Was never even close to the same. But Hayward, while a really good player, did not have the ability to change games like Drei. Hayward will be better for way longer.

 

[Ron Mexico]

So, wait. You're using the fact that AK had bad teammates that year against him? Again, dude dragged at 42-win team with Greg Ostertag as its second most impactful player to 42 wins. And somehow Gordon Hayward, who needed George Hill and a healthy Gobert to finally lead the Jazz to a winning record, is a better player?

Again, please look at the 03/04 roster, then look at the 15/16 roster. Are you actually going to argue that Kirilenko and Hayward aside, you can compare those? You're actually going to argue that a man who went 40-42 with that roster is a better player than a man who went 42-40 with the other one?

Yes, that team played very well. Many players stepped up that year along with ak. 15/16 Jazz we're the most injured team in the NBA. Hayward put top better stats and lead a team as the #1 offensive option further than any team ak was on even when he was supposedly in his prime but a 4th option. AK had potential but he had one good season at 22 then went downhill and **** the bed every year of his career in the playoffs.

It's not close Hayward is much better than AK. The only thing you can argue about ak is that he was a better defender but even then he was a meh man on man defender. He was mostly just a really good weak side help defender but often left his guy wide open to cheat over and got burned.

 

[Ron Mexico]

It always puzzled me why there was so much hate for AK by Jazz fans, but then there was this disturbing/creepy amount of adulation and hype for Haywood...was it the hair?

Comparing both players thru their first 7 seasons for the Jazz...

Kirilenko:
All-Rookie First team
1 x All-Star
3 x All-NBA Defense
led the league in blocks 2005-06
276-216 team record
53 win shares
+/- 6.2 (avg)
2 triple-double games

Haywood:
1 x All-Star
never led the league in any statistical category
248-268 team record
43 win shares
+/- 2.0 (avg)
0 triple-double games

I'd say Heywood showed more growth and improvement over his tenure, but in totatlity, Kirilenko was the better player over the same period of time. The numbers simply bear this out.

Maybe if you take their entire career all AK was better. But Hayward is just entering his prime. Even if you compare the same ages maybe ak was better but Hayward surpassed him since AK just got worse every year after 22. And again sucked in the playoffs always and never did anything as close to what Hayward did this year in the regular season or playoffs.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

I listened to it. The boil up is that it's easier to make the All Star team and get to the 2nd round in the Eastern Conference. He feels like there's a better chance to compete for a chip. He also feels how special the history of the Boston Garden is and how the city gets behind the team. His wife and he also enjoyed being in Boston.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Anyone who says Hay was better than AK at his best is either really young and never watched him, or really stupid. AK was about as effective as LeBron for a period of time, unbelievable difference on both ends of the floor. Didn't last long, but it was awesome while it did. Eisley ended Kirilenko as we knew him. Was never even close to the same. But Hayward, while a really good player, did not have the ability to change games like Drei. Hayward will be better for way longer.

Wow, where to begin? AK never developed a strong offensive game and never got to the point where he could be considered an even slightly below average jump shooter. He never approached the type of overall impact Lebron James has. When he did peak, yes he was a stat stuffing freak and extremely exciting to watch but I feel like there's a ton of revisionists history going. First somebody blamed D-Will for ruining him, now it's Howard Eisley? His defenders wouldn't even guard him from 15 feet out for gods sake! Gordon is a good defender. Nowhere as good as AK was but he still manages to be above average on that end of the floor, rebounds well for his position and has actually developed a solid offensive game. To me, Gordon is a much less athletic version of what AK could have been. Had AK stayed injury free and had Gordon's drive and work ethic, he certainly would have been better. Problem is, he didn't stay injury free and he certainly didn't seem to approach offseason improvement in the manner that Hayward does. To say people are "really stupid" if they disagree with that is, well, really stupid.

 

[JimLes]

Yes, that team played very well. Many players stepped up that year along with ak.

What players? Ben Handlogten? Michael Ruffin? That team was full of players who could've driven over to Jon Huntsman Center and would've been the 3rd or 4th best player in the building. Harpring tore whatever he tore in December that year. That team was bad. Look at his advances stats that season. Look at his win shares, his defensive rating, and most shockingly, Box +/-, his VORP.

Look at the top 2 Box +/- players over the last 20 years. Look at it. Tell me that's not an amazing season. Tell me he wasn't everything on that team.

 

[JimLes]

Also.

15/16 Jazz we're the most injured team in the NBA.

That argument is a load of ****. The Jazz were indeed the most injured team, but they had so much more talent to begin with. Here are the 3 most common lineups for the Jazz in 03/04:

Here are the three most common lineups for the Jazz in 15/16:

But please, do tell me all about how the Jazz were so injured that Hayward only got to play 43 games with Hood, Gobert, and Favours and how he mightily led that lineup to a 23-20 record. Meanwhile, the Andrei had two teammates in 03/04 who had started more than 25 games the season before. One missed 51 games that year and one was Greg Ostertag. But everyone stepped up, right?

 

[NUMBERICA]

even for an ok/slightly good player like Haywood.

Everyone unanimously wanted Hayward back at max money and now half the board echoes rubbish like that.

LOL. K.

 

[MilesDeep]

Wow, where to begin? AK never developed a strong offensive game and never got to the point where he could be considered an even slightly below average jump shooter. He never approached the type of overall impact Lebron James has. When he did peak, yes he was a stat stuffing freak and extremely exciting to watch but I feel like there's a ton of revisionists history going. First somebody blamed D-Will for ruining him, now it's Howard Eisley? His defenders wouldn't even guard him from 15 feet out for gods sake! Gordon is a good defender. Nowhere as good as AK was but he still manages to be above average on that end of the floor, rebounds well for his position and has actually developed a solid offensive game. To me, Gordon is a much less athletic version of what AK could have been. Had AK stayed injury free and had Gordon's drive and work ethic, he certainly would have been better. Problem is, he didn't stay injury free and he certainly didn't seem to approach offseason improvement in the manner that Hayward does. To say people are "really stupid" if they disagree with that is, well, really stupid.

Eisley was the reason Udrih injured AK, which abruptly ended the really good version of Andrei. AK was only great for a very short period, and I will agree never had the outside shot Hayward developed, but if you watched all the games for about a year and a half prior to that, it was very noticeable when Andrei went out, much more so than when Hayward wasn't playing. Andrei was an absolute game changer, and led a collection of scrubs to roughly a 50% win percentage when he was great.

 

[mellow]

Everyone unanimously wanted Hayward back at max money and now half the board echoes rubbish like that.

LOL. K.

Can't I believe both? I wanted him back, but never believed he was a great player, just a good player in a system built for him.

BTW, AK never had a system built for him, nor an offense designed to get him the ball where he was most effective. He was not the center of the Jazz world for 7 seasons.

Its fun to wonder what might have been if he had been given the Hayward treatment.

As for my all-time Jazz rankings, AK is far ahead of GH.

The only real debate is how much better than Hayward was Matt Harpring.

 

[hgb]

Everyone unanimously wanted Hayward back at max money and now half the board echoes rubbish like that.

LOL. K.

I wanted him back, even at that contract, but there's not like there isn't a silver lining: Hayward at 30M/y is a huge amount of capspace. It's fine when what you get is Lebron or Curry or Durant, but since he isn't any of those, I think it's also a contract that could backfire.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yes, that team played very well. Many players stepped up that year along with ak. 15/16 Jazz we're the most injured team in the NBA. Hayward put top better stats and lead a team as the #1 offensive option further than any team ak was on even when he was supposedly in his prime but a 4th option. AK had potential but he had one good season at 22 then went downhill and **** the bed every year of his career in the playoffs.

It's not close Hayward is much better than AK. The only thing you can argue about ak is that he was a better defender but even then he was a meh man on man defender. He was mostly just a really good weak side help defender but often left his guy wide open to cheat over and got burned.

I think hayward is better but also think you are under rating AK

 

[fishonjazz]

I wanted him back, even at that contract, but there's not like there isn't a silver lining: Hayward at 30M/y is a huge amount of capspace. It's fine when what you get is Lebron or Curry or Durant, but since he isn't any of those, I think it's also a contract that could backfire.

This.
I wanted the jazz to re-sign him but at the same time I was worried it would be a mistake.

 

[Surely]

Everyone unanimously wanted Hayward back at max money and now half the board echoes rubbish like that.

LOL. K.

I don't post on here much so there no way you could have known my thoughts but I was absolutely against signing Hayward to some crazy deal. He is a good player but let's be honest, is he really the 3rd best player in the league? According to this http://hoopshype.com/salaries/players/ he is the 3rd highest paid player. Imagine what the Jazz future would look like if Hill had taken the $80M extension and Hayward would have stayed. We would have our hands tied for the next couple of years financially for a team that I wouldn't expect to do any better than this year's team did. I think we are in a much better situation with how things played out. To summarize, imo Hayward would have been great to keep at the right price. No sour grapes from me, in fact I plan on taking Danny Ainge out for a drink if he ever comes to watch his kid play at USU.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I think hayward is better but also think you are under rating AK

Maybe, make an argument for me.

What did he do for the Jazz in the post season? To me a played a small role and was meh for his career.

He was really good for a 22 year old with tons of potential. But then got worse every year and was terrible in his prime years. I guess I would have liked him if we didn't see this potential early and we paid him what he was worth which was about the mle.

Most people argue he was good based on potential but that argument could be made for most NBA players.

Most AK fans blame Sloan, a hof coach, for how bad AK was.

Dude just couldn't hack it in the NBA. Whenever games actually mattered in the playoffs he shrunk.

 

[fishonjazz]

Maybe, make an argument for me.

What did he do for the Jazz in the post season? To me a played a small role and was meh for his career.

He was really good for a 22 year old with tons of potential. But then got worse every year and was terrible in his prime years. I guess I would have liked him if we didn't see this potential early and we paid him what he was worth which was about the mle.

Most people argue he was good based on potential but that argument could be made for most NBA players.

Most AK fans blame Sloan, a hof coach, for how bad AK was.

Dude just couldn't hack it in the NBA. Whenever games actually mattered in the playoffs he shrunk.

I remember AK at his peak and people wanting the jazz to give AK all teh monies. Me included. I thought he was going to be a top 3 player in the league type of player. At his peak, dude was phenomenal. Short lived for sure but that mother ****er was incredibly special at his peak.

 

[bigmike]

The problem with AK is that he was played out of position. Pre-Boozer/when Boozer was injured, he played PF and his length/athleticism around the bucket was truly special. Once he got pushed to the wing and had to play on the perimeter, his impact fell off drastically.

Big, big Jerry Sloan fan but I always thought that was a big blunder.