What's new
By:

Utah Denied A Wet Bandit Trade???!!

Marvin is one of those nice guys/middle-of-the-road talents that Utah always seems to have a hard on for. I have no doubt they'll make a concerted effort to keep him next year - probably 2 years and a team option.
 
candrew said:
Marvin is one of those nice guys/middle-of-the-road talents that Utah always seems to have a hard on for. I have no doubt they'll make a concerted effort to keep him next year - probably 2 years and a team option.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the idea of Marvin sticking around in and of itself.

Against the back drop that him being moved increases the chances of a better pick for Utah this year...sorry Marvin. Pack your bags.
 
framer said:
Also, for the 10 thousandth time, Marvin getting playing time has little effect on the tank. You want to tank it is all about playing JL3 over Burks. Do that and none of the rest of it matters. You could also just march out sans point guard and play 4 on 5. It would only be slightly more obvious at that point.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, we want to tank while assessing present talent in an in-game situation at the same time.

Benching Burke and Burks for Lucas III and Ian Clark gets us a worse record-- but it hinders talent-development, and doesn't paint a good picture of what we have on our roster.


With trading Marv, we could give Kanter a thwack of minutes, and see if he really DOES complement Favors well on both ends of the court. That's something that's still an unknown this season-- mostly due to the minutes that Marvin Williams has received. All of this while securing an awful record, and a better draft pick.



The argument could be made that we knew already what Favors + Kanter gives us on offense, so we just threw in Marvin-- but that's a view I disagree with.
 
UGLI baby said:
That's the only reason I'm not freaking out. Really hard to believe this could actually be true.



#nTn
Click to expand...
Williams is NOT better than Hawes or Turner. Those players only netted 2nd round picks. I have a feeling that IF the Jazz turned down a late first it came with a long-term contract attached.

Really can't see many contracts that would fit -and that make sense from a contender. I think the Pacers would prefer Turner, plus they only gave up a 2nd. Maybe Chicago offered Boozer?
 
dalamon said:
Keep in mind, we want to tank while assessing present talent in an in-game situation at the same time.

Benching Burke and Burks for Lucas III and Ian Clark gets us a worse record-- but it hinders talent-development, and doesn't paint a good picture of what we have on our roster.


With trading Marv, we could give Kanter a thwack of minutes, and see if he really DOES complement Favors well on both ends of the court. That's something that's still an unknown this season-- mostly due to the minutes that Marvin Williams has received. All of this while securing an awful record, and a better draft pick.



The argument could be made that we knew already what Favors + Kanter gives us on offense, so we just threw in Marvin-- but that's a view I disagree with.
Click to expand...

I think that was the plan right up until it was apparent that Kanter's injury had set him back. If I remember right, we brought back Marvin from HIS injury earlier than expected to help with that. Kanter just now is starting to get to the point where we would have liked him to begin the year. Also, looking over and seeing how Gobert is growing, it isn't too far out of the reach of reason that a Gobert pairing with Kanter playing heavy bench minutes might be in the cards. If Kanter can be dominant offensively there, it could allow him to smooth out his offensive game as a first option against bench players with a defensive presence like Gobert to backstop him. We could then wait for a better coach to teach Kanter proper defense technique later. He's still young enough for that.
If we are going to grow and develop as a team, we will need at least one of Burks, Kanter, or Marvin to lead the bench next year, preferably two of them. It would have had to have been a good trade to move Marvin because of this. Rj could have been had for almost nothing, I'd bet. There just weren't any takers.
 
Here are the high salaries (>$3M) of contending teams (that they MIGHT have been willing to part with):

[TABLE="width: 526"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, width: 701, bgcolor: white"]Indiana - Danny Granger $14M.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Miami - Haslem $4.3M (2 yr); Battier $3.3M.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl68, bgcolor: white"]Toronto - Salmons $7.6M (2 yrs), Fields $6.3M (2 yrs), Lowry $6.2M, Hayes $5.7M (2 yrs), Novak $3.8M (3 yrs).
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Atlanta - Elton Brand $4M, several others at $1M+. Getting L. Williams at $5.2M (2 yr) would require additional assets.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Chicago - Boozer $15.3M (2 yrs), Gibson $7.6M (4 years), Hinrich $4M, Dunleavy $3.2M (2 years)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Washington - Vesely $3.3M, Seraphin $2.8M, Booker $2.4M
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Brooklyn - No one. Garnett has been disappointing but has no-trade clause.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Charlotte - Gordon $13.2M,
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Oklahoma City - Perkins $8.7M (2 years), Sefolosha $3.9M, Collison $2.6M (2 years).
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: white"]San Antonio - Diaw $4.7M, Bonner $3.9M.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Portland - Robinson $3.5M (3 years), Wright $3M (2 years)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]LA Clippers - Dudley $4.3M (3 years), Barnes $3.3M (4 years)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Houston - No one. Asik $8.4M (2 years). Asking price has been very high.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Phoenix - Emeka Okafor $14.5M
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Golden State - Speights $3.5M (3 years). Trade exceptions, but no 1st round pick.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Dallas - Dalembert $3.7M (2 years), Ellington $2.7M (2 years)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: white"]Memphis - Prince $7.2M ( 2 yrs), Koufos $3.0 (2 yrs)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Have to match $7.5M (+/- 25% +100K, I believe). There just aren't too many possibilities that would ALSO net Utah a late 1st-round pick. Maybe Miami. Haslem has done nothing. Still, to make salaries match Miami has to add $2M to the deal. That means Chalmers or Battier.

Utah BOUGHT a 1st-rounder last year for $3M. They might be able to do the same this year if they want. Their 2nd-round pick is nearly in that range and might actually have more value than a very late 1st (same range of players, but contract won't be guaranteed).
 
Last edited:
Vermin said:
Look pal, that GS pick is either lottery or garbage. No borderline about it. That late first would have been more garbage. Ill take a re-signed Marvin Williams, Jabari (fingers crossed), and a few other young vets to round out our roster and start making runs next year rather than accumulate all these ****ty picks you idiots want.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how this process works. Unless we tank GSW style from here on out, Jabari isn't even a pipe dream. Go ahead and cross your fingers until they break.

I am not a Marvin hater. I understood his value to this team before most, and was almost a homer https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?18863-A-(weakish)-Case-for-Why-Marvin-Could-Have-a-Big-Year-in-13-14&highlight=marvin+williams


but you are crazy if you think the value of a late first rounder ends at whether or not that player is or will be better than Marvin.

If you want Jabari, tough, he's not going to be there where we are currently selecting. No one's going to consider a #6 pick (Jazz currently) and a #21 (GSW) pick for the #2 or #3 pick to snag Jabari. But you would have a little more ground to stand on if you some how converted the #21 (GSW) pick, #25 pick or whatever it is, and some cash into a late lottery pick like #13 or something.

Plus, in the absence of Marvin you have less floor spacing because Kanter isn't allowed to shoot the 3's. Now Alec and Gordon can't drive to the basket because there is no space. The only person on the perimeter shooting a decent fg% is RJ. The currently constructed offense that only produces 94 ppg would crumble and have to go through a period of adjustments as the losses pile up. Maybe those losses help us get Jabari with our own pick. Kanter gets freed out of necessity, possibly allowed to shoot 3's. The Kanter/Favors duo logs some serious time together, learning the balance between their defense and offense.

That late first rounder that we coupled with the GSW pick could net us another scorer in Stauskas or McDermott, or whoever we wanted.

Point is, you can't complete the puzzle without the right pieces!!!!!!
 
Just give it up. Even trading Williams (and I doubt there was even a serious discussion) was NOT going to get Utah in the top 3. Milwaukee is a lock at #1. Philadelphia and Orlando have 5 game leads in the loss column. MAYBE, MAYBE, the Jazz wind up 4th. But Utah is still contending with a Boston team that is in tank mode and a Laker team that has perhaps the toughest remaining schedule in the league.
 
Sexual Favors said:
I don't think you understand how this process works. Unless we tank GSW style from here on out, Jabari isn't even a pipe dream. Go ahead and cross your fingers until they break.

I am not a Marvin hater. I understood his value to this team before most, and was almost a homer https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?18863-A-(weakish)-Case-for-Why-Marvin-Could-Have-a-Big-Year-in-13-14&highlight=marvin+williams


but you are crazy if you think the value of a late first rounder ends at whether or not that player is or will be better than Marvin.

If you want Jabari, tough, he's not going to be there where we are currently selecting. No one's going to consider a #6 pick (Jazz currently) and a #21 (GSW) pick for the #2 or #3 pick to snag Jabari. But you would have a little more ground to stand on if you some how converted the #21 (GSW) pick, #25 pick or whatever it is, and some cash into a late lottery pick like #13 or something.

Plus, in the absence of Marvin you have less floor spacing because Kanter isn't allowed to shoot the 3's. Now Alec and Gordon can't drive to the basket because there is no space. The only person on the perimeter shooting a decent fg% is RJ. The currently constructed offense that only produces 94 ppg would crumble and have to go through a period of adjustments as the losses pile up. Maybe those losses help us get Jabari with our own pick. Kanter gets freed out of necessity, possibly allowed to shoot 3's. The Kanter/Favors duo logs some serious time together, learning the balance between their defense and offense.

That late first rounder that we coupled with the GSW pick could net us another scorer in Stauskas or McDermott, or whoever we wanted.

Point is, you can't complete the puzzle without the right pieces!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Jesus, Maybe You dont know how this process works. Lottery balls??? NO ONE IS GUARANTEED A POSITION DA LOTTERY!
 
Core4 said:
Just give it up. Even trading Williams (and I doubt there was even a serious discussion) was NOT going to get Utah in the top 3. Milwaukee is a lock at #1. Philadelphia and Orlando have 5 game leads in the loss column. MAYBE, MAYBE, the Jazz wind up 4th. But Utah is still contending with a Boston team that is in tank mode and a Laker team that has perhaps the toughest remaining schedule in the league.
Click to expand...

If you scroll back a couple pages, you will see I said I was playing devil's advocate.

I don't think there was a deal that didn't come with a bad contract. Only exception would be Charlotte's Ben Gordon, but then again that isn't a late first round pick.

As for Utah not getting in top 3 under the trade Marvin scenario, I'm not so sure. I agree with you tank rank assessment as is, but I think you have to consider Orlando's desire for targeting Smart, who isn't going in the top 3. I personally don't think they'd sell out of Jabari for Smart, but they did say it; so it deserves consideration. Also, our team makeup is delicate. One key player goes out and the hinges come off. We are about to go on a 6 game road trip and have lost 3 in a row w/o Favors. If we had to redesign our offense on the road (absence of Marvin), I could see us losing all 6 of those. By that point, the tank rank would be anyone's guess.

Again. Just devil's advocate. Don't be so closed-minded.
 
I don't see this mattering one way or the other. As long as Favors stays out of the lineup all will be fine. If last game was a sign of things to come the tank is in good shape.
 
Sometimes I feel smart for being the smartest person on jazzfanz, but then I realize that I am dumb by default for being on jazzfanz.



#nTn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top