What's new
By:

locke's idea - big man rotation

T

theNBAnerd

Well-Known Member
let's all try really hard to NOT make this a thread about why locke does or doesn't suck. i just listened to his tip-off and he addressed the big man situation.

his suggestion is to start jefferson + favors, but sub out jefferson after just 4-5 minutes, and then bring him back in for the second quarter so that most of his minutes can be against "second-tier" bigs, because he believes that al's production is so much better vs. second-tier guys that the best solution is to maximize the minutes he is playing against that crop. he says this keeps kanter in the 16-20 minute range since he's not sure he's ready for more, and will guarantee paul a substantive role because he'll be playing 7-8 minutes of the first and third, plus portions of the back quarters.

so what do y'all think?

my main contentions are with the logic that his idea is based on. namely:

1) he says that if we're sending al/paul away, that results in a bigger role for kanter than what he is ready for and then makes jeremy the 4th big, which he just can't be at this stage... as though we wouldn't get anything back in the al/paul deal to help shore up the bigs.

2) he says he sees kanter getting the same minutes as last year (he said 16 mpg, he's actually wrong - kanter averaged 13.2), while i think it would be a huge waste to not try to advance kanter's role to SOME degree.

3) (and this is a big one) i have problem with the logic of calling al a starter but then bending over backwards to make sure he's playing second-string bigs. if you have a guy who you are so concerned about hiding from first-unit big men because he does most of damage against what locke calls "second-tier" guys, then maybe he's not the ideal starter in the first place. if the assertion is that al can be most effective playing against second units, then put him on the bench and let him play against second units. (note: i know that doing so would kill his trade value, i just think it's ridiculous to have him be the starter in name only because he can only be effective against mediocre bigs... and that's the whole logic behind locke's idea.)
 
I agree with all of your three counter points. I really like #3.

If Millsap came off the bench I don't think that it would hurt his trade value.

It might hurt Al's trade value but it is already low. Any trade made with Jefferson brings back undesired salary. You might as well make him look great state wise. You might even win more games than expected. My only concern is Jefferson and Kanter coming off the bench and playing a decent amount of minutes together.
 
I think Locke is making the most out of a less-than-ideal situation.

I still think the Jazz will keep both Paul and AL simply because they do not know which will be re-signable in the summer. They may prefer Millsap, with Favors starting at the 5 and splitting his mins equally between the 4 and 5, but will Paul demand or get an offer from another team that is simply too big?

Or maybe with the trio of outside shooters the Jazz have signed, the Jeffeerson/Favors duo proves the best fit. And maybe part of that depends on if Marvin Willaims can be retained. Certainly having outside threats from the wings and PG positions changes the offense from what it has been the last couple of seasons.

Yes, I think Kanter needs minutes. But all the bigs were healthy last season and Enes still averaged 13/per. The likelihood of having another season with no injuries is small. It's nice to have the depth at the bigs to withstand a major injury to any of them.

It's a juggling match trying to retain trade value for Al and Paul, give Derrick enough PT to make him happy AND develop Enes. One way or another, the situation will be resolved at the trade deadline or during the summer. Favors is the priority since he can be extended. But he said he's also willing to come off the bench, so that's not a problem. For that reason (if the Jazz hope to re-sign paul), I'd start Millsap and Jefferson, but make sure Favors still gets 30 mins/per. Then you assess the situation near the deadline and make adjustments/trades.
 
Hey guys, maybe we can fool Al into thinking he's a starter when he's really not. Then everybody's happy.

This idea also works by starting Sap at the 3 and then yanking him after a few minutes.

Suckas.
 
theNBAnerd said:
let's all try really hard to NOT make this a thread about why locke does or doesn't suck. i just listened to his tip-off and he addressed the big man situation.

his suggestion is to start jefferson + favors, but sub out jefferson after just 4-5 minutes, and then bring him back in for the second quarter so that most of his minutes can be against "second-tier" bigs, because he believes that al's production is so much better vs. second-tier guys that the best solution is to maximize the minutes he is playing against that crop. he says this keeps kanter in the 16-20 minute range since he's not sure he's ready for more, and will guarantee paul a substantive role because he'll be playing 7-8 minutes of the first and third, plus portions of the back quarters.

so what do y'all think?

my main contentions are with the logic that his idea is based on. namely:

1) he says that if we're sending al/paul away, that results in a bigger role for kanter than what he is ready for and then makes jeremy the 4th big, which he just can't be at this stage... as though we wouldn't get anything back in the al/paul deal to help shore up the bigs.

2) he says he sees kanter getting the same minutes as last year (he said 16 mpg, he's actually wrong - kanter averaged 13.2), while i think it would be a huge waste to not try to advance kanter's role to SOME degree.

3) (and this is a big one) i have problem with the logic of calling al a starter but then bending over backwards to make sure he's playing second-string bigs. if you have a guy who you are so concerned about hiding from first-unit big men because he does most of damage against what locke calls "second-tier" guys, then maybe he's not the ideal starter in the first place. if the assertion is that al can be most effective playing against second units, then put him on the bench and let him play against second units. (note: i know that doing so would kill his trade value, i just think it's ridiculous to have him be the starter in name only because he can only be effective against mediocre bigs... and that's the whole logic behind locke's idea.)
Click to expand...

Locke has a point and you improvised it but not starting Al means risking his bs about he should be a starter and all that ****. Other than that, Al is indeed better against any center who does not defend him too well.

Hack said:
Just put Kanter in a freezer for a couple years.
Click to expand...

Hehhe nice one.

pickledXgrandma said:
Who do you want on the floor?
Click to expand...

Good point.

bjunior said:
Favors
Click to expand...

Thread locker.
 
Some have questions whether or not Al's trade value would be effected by starting or off the bench. I think his only trade value now or at the trade deadline is his expiring contract. I truely doubt any team values him as a quality big they just have to have....
 
If we are keeping Al so that his big contract can just expire and free up big space next summer, then why do we care if his trade value dips because we're bringing him off the bench?

Everybody has talked about what a nice dude Al is.... I guess he's too nice to come off the bench?
 
Jazz are not going to win anything in the next two or three years. At best the Jazz are a four or five seed if everything goes right. The Jazz need to make a decision who their guys are. You can't make all four guys happy. Kanter and Favor's growth will be stunted if they play limited minutes again. I don't care if Kanter struggles it is the only way he is going to get better. Make a decision between Big AL and Millsap. Then play a 3 man rotation with all guys getting minutes. Trading one of the players now instead of watching talent players walk only sets the team back another year. Evans can handle spot up minutes. He always seems to produce.
 
Freak said it best, but Locke is playing mad scientist in a fantasy world. I'll be very surprised (not shocked) if Al and Sap don't start game 1.
 
As a secondary point, I don't really care that much about forcing a 20 year old kid on the floor. At this point, Locke's right that Favors is a 15 - 20 player. But if he proves better than that, I'm sure Ty will get real creative trying to figure out ways to get him more minutes, which likely means more Sap at the 3 on a regular basis. And I'd be shocked if at least one of our wings doesn't disappoint, whoever that may be, and thus it might be a real easy transition despite a few hurt feelings for whoever gets iced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top