Don't agree. I don't think the NBA makes a practice of replacing injured players with players from the same team unless they are deserving. This isn't MLB.
Memo's First Game in Europa
- Thread starter aybars
- Start date
Don't agree. I don't think the NBA makes a practice of replacing injured players with players from the same team unless they are deserving. This isn't MLB.
especially when your team is named Utah Jazz.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
OK; I'll take your word for it, but he was an All-Star only due to injury, not due solely to his on merit.
Duh, you know why? HE WENT TO KENTUCKY!
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Signed for a shorter amount of time than what?
I agree that so many centers got eight-figure salaries around that time--Noah, Bogut, Camby (on average), Bynum--but I'd probably want any of them over Okur, especially if MO costs about $10 million per.
Just because other teams were overpaying for centers doesn't mean Utah should've. And the bigger issue is that maybe the other C's did deserve that amount but Okur didn't.
Okur being ranked as a top 10 center is less about MO's skills and more about (1) the scarcity of bone fide centers in the league, and (2) the poor analysis of those making the rankings, given that his defense was so mediocre, and his offensive game inside the paint was underwhelming also.
Injuries aren't necessary to show that Okur wasn't worth re-signing. You could look, though, at the fact that he turned 30 before he re-signed, and that he was already slowing down. And, on top of that, the Jazz could've waited another year without likely risking a loss of him because he was still on contract. This was the same mistake they did with Kirilenko--locking him up too early.
It would be ambitious to suggest that Koufous and Fesenko could've filled the void of Okur back in 2009, but they were on the roster for a fractioin of th price, and neither one had played enough to really determine what their upside was (although they had had bright spots when they were on the court), but they had the potential to be a much better complement to Boozer: a big, somewhat mobile body to compensate for Boozer's weaknesses defensively and stay out of the way offensively. What's more, Koufos was on his way to developing a mid-range jumper, and Fesenko was much better than Okur at controlling the paint (albeit with some foul trouble). Neither one, though, averaged 10 minutes per available game, and so their development was stalled under Sloan's poor judgment.
The bottom line is that Okur had had some shining moments years ago against the likes of Yao Ming but was no longer a key piece in championship contention, given that he could no longer play convincingly against playoff bigs and didn't help the gaping paint problem alongside Boozer.
Eight figures was a lot of money for a one-dimensional "Money Ball" player who was never in great shape and was naturally aging, thus increasing the risk of injury.
Careful bro. I may start to like you and your posts.
You're right, but every year there are 3 or 4 guys in each conference who deserve to be all-stars but don't make it for one reason or another. Stacked positions, fan voting, character issues, etc. I consider those guys to be all-star caliber players even though they don't make the team. He wasn't selected to the team initially but in IMO Okur was all-star caliber that year. It's also possible that Boozer's selection affected the selection of Okur. If the coaches didn't want 2 Jazz players on the squad Boozer was the first choice.
I'm guessing than what he would have signed for with another team after the 09-10 season. If he hadn't been hurt, he would have been a center coming of a 13.5 ppg. 7 rpg year, shooting 38.5% from 3. Not his best year, but I have to think Okur could have signed with someone else for more than 2 years. Don't know if he would have made any more money or not but given the nature of free agency, and that centers are always at a premium, I think he would have signed for more than 2 years and for probably more total money. Given his history (he had only missed 30 games in 6 years) the Jazz could not have predicted the injury IMO.
So would I, but we really couldn't go after any of those guys and even if we could were any of them coming to Utah? Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I recall the only bigs on the roster were Boozer, Okur, Millsap, Fesenko, and Koufos. Most people thought Boozer was leaving, Koufos wasn’t the answer, Fesenko was not a sure thing and was a free agent, and I don’t think we had cap space to chase legitimate bigs in the summer of 2010. Barring a trade the Jazz just did not have a lot of options for reliable bigs. We probably overpaid for Okur, but he wanted to be here and could we really expect, at that moment in time, to replace him for 2010 with someone of equal or greater talent for the same money? Or that he would not sign elsewhere if we gambled that we could save some money by waiting a year to resign him?
Of course it does. You have to pay the going rate for players to stay competitive. If other teams historically overpay for centers isn’t it safe to assume they would have overpaid for Okur in 2010? With limited cap space what do the Jazz do then for a center? They had to make this decision long before he got hurt and could not rely on Koufos or Fesenko.
Again, what were the options for the Jazz if they hadn’t resigned him? The Jazz don’t have a crystal ball and don’t have the advantage of hindsight. They were not going to have significant cap space in the summer of 2010. I agree that betting on a 30 year old Okur was risky but it was also risky to assume you would be able to resign him or replace him on the roster in 2010. Right or wrong, the Jazz were proactive. Good for them.
First of all, the Jazz thought Boozer was leaving (this was early in July of 2009 and most people thought he would opt out), so whether or not Koufos or Fesenko would be a better complement to Boozer was irrelevant in the decision making process. Secondly, wins are not awarded to teams on the basis of lowest total salary. You need talent. It’s now 2011 and Koufos and Fesenko are still not as good as Okur. Third, IMO Fesenko’s lack of development is on Fesenko, not Sloan. He’s an f***ing goofball who will never be as good as Okur no matter how many minutes he gets. I may not know much, but one thing I do know is that Jerry Sloan is a competitive SOB who would do anything to win a game. If he thought playing Fesenko would get him the W he would have played him 40 minutes a game. Fesenko is a waste, he is unreliable and his work ethic sucks. It’s a shame because I had high hopes. I hate watching guys who could be really good waste their opportunities because they don’t take it seriously enough or work hard enough to get better (are you listening CJ?). I wish we had been smart enough to draft Gasol instead. And last but not least, shining moments years ago? He was coming off a season where he averaged 17 ppg, 7.7 rpg, and shot over 44% from 3. It was arguably his best season ever. In any case, if you're the Jazz I don’t think you can always base your personnel decisions on whether or not a player is a piece on a contending team. Sometimes you just have to take the best available player. I would love to contend every year but that’s just not reality. In a small market, especially Utah, you have to field the best possible team and hope you are competitive enough to put fans in the seats and contend once in a while. Attendance is critical for the Jazz. If you’re KOC, after losing Boozer and Okur, how can you afford to gamble that Fesenko or Koufos, or whoever else you can afford and convince to come to Utah, is going to step up and be just as effective. Knowing everything he knows today, KOC doesn't do the extension, but in 2009, when the decision had to be made, it was probably the right thing to do IMO. Anyway, don’t mean to offend, this is all just my opinion and doesn’t mean much except I am bored and wish the lockout would end.
Memo didn't have to be extended that offseason. The Jazz had a year to extend him, and they still would've owned his bird rights. There is NO good reason he should've been extended. Him saying "please" does not qualify as a reason.
The argument of "Well how could the Jazz no he would of be injured lol??" is completely moot since the Jazz didn't have to extend him at that time. It was a ****ing dumb move, cut and dry.
Fortunately, it was only two years.
The argument of "Well how could the Jazz no he would of be injured lol??" is completely moot since the Jazz didn't have to extend him at that time. It was a ****ing dumb move, cut and dry.
Fortunately, it was only two years.
Maybe you’re right; I mean you did use big letters.
But as I understand bird rights they don't guarantee a player will resign or that you will get anything in return if they go elsewhere. We owned Boozer's bird rights too, and he's in Chicago. There was a lot of money around in the summer of 2010. Who knows what would have happened with Okur. What if someone had offered him 4 years at 7-8 m per? We could have exceeded the cap to sign him but who would want him for 4 more years? The number of years may have been more important to KOC than the dollars. In the end, I guess it comes down to how much you value Okur and whether you wanted him on the team. You think it was a mistake. I don’t. Life goes on.
I tend to trust KOC on stuff like this because I think he’s pretty good at it and is the only one to have all of the information. Did we have a year? I don't know. It’s possible that his agent would have been less likely to negotiate an extension as the season went on and it became apparent how much money would be available in 2010. I also don’t think the injury, or ability to predict the injury, is moot because his injury history would factor into the thought process just as it does for Kirilenko.
I'm an *******.
But whoever made the call to extend Memo is an even bigger *******. It simply did not need to happen at the time, and if everything unfolded the same way in 2010 for Memo (let's just pretend), who knows what would be different now. You can all but guarantee Wes would still be here.
But whoever made the call to extend Memo is an even bigger *******. It simply did not need to happen at the time, and if everything unfolded the same way in 2010 for Memo (let's just pretend), who knows what would be different now. You can all but guarantee Wes would still be here.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
Yes, and Wes at $7 million per (on average) is more valuable than even a pre-injury Okur at $10 million per. The Jazz had better-defending center scrubs to fill the gap for a fraction of Okur's price.
And, with Deron (until he was traded), CJ, and either Wes or Gordon (or both), the 3-point "Money Ball" wasn't all that scarce on the Jazz.
It was extremely scarce. CJ and Dwill shot a lot of them last year, but had terrible %. Gordon shot an extremely high %, but hardly attempted many. We were 20th in %, and 24th in 3PM, and 22nd in 3PA.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Wes shot 41% from 3 last season (for the Blazers). Memo shot .313.
The Memo extension was stupid. The Jazz had just been knocked out in the first round of the playoffs, everyone was sick of Boozer (and seemingly he was gone in another year), and it should have been obvious to the FO that the Jazz weren't going to be title contenders any time soon. There was nothing to gain in locking Memo up early, and the Jazz ended up losing their best wing player with the extension.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
One 'small' weakness in your analysis <<rolleyes>>: Utah was 27th--even worse--in 3p% during 2008-2009, the season before Okur was reupped, and 26th in 3PA. (They went up 7th best 3p% but that couldv'e been aided by the presence of Wesley Matthews, shooting 38% in his rookie year from the three, only underscoring my argument, that the money was better spent elsewhere).
In other words, with Okur out most of the year last season, Utah's ranking didn't slip (not that there was far to slip) vs. 2008-2009 and arguably improved. Okur's rain wouldn't have been missed.
https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/...rt/avgThreePointFieldGoalsAttempted/year/2009
The Jazz probably re-signed him because they feared the lack of availability of high-quality centers. But that money was better spent on the likes of Matthews, and Koufos + Fesenko (+ Elson) could've produced better defense at the 5 spot while staying out of the way of Boozer (or Jefferson) offensively. And, as has been stated so eloquently (including Numberically) elsewhere, there was no rush to tie up the Turk one year early. He was not a playoff piece (despite being ranked as a top 10 center), and the wheels were starrting to wear down.
for Okur! he is the same age as Haywood, who got a 6-year deal for nearly the same per-season salary. Okur could be out of the NBA altogether after this season (if there is one).