What's new
By:

Hood traded to Cleveland for Crowder; Johnson to Sacramento

At first blush this just seems like an attempt to save money this summer. Crowder's absolutely not better than Hood. What am I missing?
 
I kinda get it. We'll renounce Rose, so we got rid of JJ which is nice for both parties.

Hood, in a vacuum, is a better player than Crowder. However, Hood wasn't going to get re-signed, and wasn't going to have a big role here. Hood will probably put up better stats in Cleveland just because of the role he'll have there. He's a good player.

Crowder is no slouch though. Good positional flexibility, good defender, good shooter, jack of all trade kinda guy. Great, great contract. Cleveland just wasn't a good place for him because Cleveland doesn't really run an offense. Boston, obviously did. We, obviously do. Snyder will help Crowder out a lot, imo. Last year Crowder put up 14/6/2 on 46/40/81 shooting splits. That's pretty darn good. I think last year a lot of us would have been willing to do a Crowder-Hood trade, and Hood arguably has less value now because he's a half year rental.
 
do we get a draft pick?
I have always like crowder so im happy with the trade but think we should get a pick as well for helping them get rid of rose.

Does this free up some minutes for AB?
 
JAZZGASM said:
A signed Crowder through 19-20 is > than letting Hood walk away for nothing, which it sounds like the Jazz were going to do. Crowder is only getting 7-7.8M per.
Click to expand...
This.
I dig it.
 
I'm not overly disappointed as I like Crowder but I'm not sure this really moves the needle in any sort of way but slightly backwards on the current team.
 
Crowder hasn't had a good year, but a year ago he was considered one of the best contracts in the league. Utah is likely a better situation for him than Cleveland, so if he can revive himself somewhat, he still could bring back a decent pick in the offseason, or Utah could just keep him.

I was hoping for a decent pick coming back, but this isn't bad. Of all the players that were rumored to come back in a Hood trade, Crowder was really the only one worth consideration.

Also, for anyone who wants to complain about this move, you better not be one of the dweebs who was booing Hood. I think there's a possibility that Hood requested a trade and this was the best DL could do at this point in time.

In the future, I hope Jazz fans learn to keep their ****ing mouths shut when they feel like booing a player.
 
I am not a big fan of this trade for the Jazz because I am not certain that Crowder is a better fit for the current team than Hood, however, it feels like a fair exchange of value. If there are subsequent trades today then this trade could end up looking better.
 
Yeah, I like that trade. Utah had to pay too much (maybe $15 million) to keep him next year anyway, especially since he was coming from the bench. It was never happening now that Mitchell is here.

Good shooter but very streaky, with lacking defense and multiple injury problems. I hope he succeeds in Cleveland though.

Crowder is one of the best contracts in the league for 2 years after this one if he plays anything like in Boston and he fits the team perfectly with great defense and nice shooting. Probably the best return they could get for Hood.
 
JAZZGASM said:
A signed Crowder through 19-20 is > than letting Hood walk away for nothing, which it sounds like the Jazz were going to do. Crowder is only getting 7-7.8M per.
Click to expand...

fishonjazz said:
This.
I dig it.
Click to expand...

There was likely a 1% chance of Hood walking for nothing. There is very little money for FA this year, which is why sweet Lou took a deal for 8 m a year. Utah likely could have signed Hood pretty cheaply. All things considered, this trade has the possibility of being good or slightly bad, but not some disaster.

If nothing else, Utah traded for the guy who broke Haywood's ankle. So that's a plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top